PDA

View Full Version : Getting away from a spit... other than running away-PART TWO



Pages : [1] 2

blairgowrie
05-25-2010, 05:55 AM
Continued from: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...801030468#5801030468 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3631050558?r=5801030468#5801030468)

blairgowrie
05-25-2010, 05:55 AM
Continued from: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...801030468#5801030468 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3631050558?r=5801030468#5801030468)

koivis
05-25-2010, 01:09 PM
I take this silence as we have succesfully escaped from that Spitfire! Good job! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kettenhunde
05-25-2010, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> that's in particular true for glider pilots </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it is....

Flying a glider simply requires a better pilot for the most part. Just like flying a taildragger makes a pilot learn how to use a rudder, flying a glider well requires a good angle of attack awareness.

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/aoa.html

In a Modern Jet fighter, the aircraft is much simpler to fly than most GA aircraft. It is the peripherals and weapon systems that are difficult and complex to operate.

In WWII, it was the reverse. The aircraft were complicated to fly and the weapons easy to operate!

Just operating the engine requires supercharger gearing changes, mixture control adjustments, propeller rpm, manifold pressure, and carburetor heat operation all balanced within the operating limits to achieve the performance desired.

M_Gunz
05-25-2010, 04:42 PM
In WWII, it was the reverse. The aircraft were complicated to fly and the weapons easy to operate!

Easy to fire, sure. Not so easy to get shoot-downs though.

Kettenhunde
05-25-2010, 05:51 PM
That's right. The more deflection and range, the more unlikely a hit.

trashcanUK
05-25-2010, 06:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In a Modern Jet fighter, the aircraft is much simpler to fly than most GA aircraft </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

PMSL .... that is the funniest thing I've read for many, many years.

irR4tiOn4L
05-25-2010, 06:39 PM
So Kettenhunde, i take it youve read this about John Boyd:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Boyd was famous for a maneuver he called "flat-plating the bird." He would be in the defensive position with a challenger tight on his tail, both pulling heavy Gs, when he would suddenly pull the stick full aft, brace his elbows on either side of the cockpit, so the stick would not move laterally, and stomp the rudder. It was as if a manhole cover were sailing through the air and then suddenly flipped 90 degrees. The underside of the fuselage, wings, and horizontal stabilizer became a speed brake that slowed the Hun from 400 knots to 150 knots in seconds. The pursuing pilot was thrown forward and now Boyd was on his tail radioing "Guns. Guns. Guns." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kettenhunde, i would put it to you that there was a lot more to the man than just his EM theory! Apart from his EM thoery, Boyd demonstrated his exceptional skill as a pilot! On what basis would you come in here and say that you are as qualified a pilot as John Boyd to judge air combat maneouvers, with his EM theory alone?

You may be using his tools, but you fail to account for some very important things like getting shot by a Spitfire following you, or how to shoot your guns, or how to keep your stick from moving laterally while performing his crazy maneouvre. You see, Boyd understood the art as well as the science, and thats what makes an excellent fighter pilot. You only understand the science, and thats where you keep going wrong.


I would also ask you again about your military career and how it demonstrates your experience with air combat maneouvers, to the point where you can be so dismissive of simulators entirely, and without reference to EM theory, which simulator pilots also employ. I want to know what kind of specific experience you have to suggest IL2 gives you less of an idea of what WWII air combat was like than mock dogfights in civilian aircraft.

However, I take it you did not reply previously for privacy concerns, and i do understand you taking that perspective. In which case i would merely point out that you cannot dismiss simulator experience based solely on civilian piloting or EM theory

You are running up against some very valid observations from people who see the concepts you outline applied in a dynamic simulation, and completely ignore the results

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
In a Modern Jet fighter, the aircraft is much simpler to fly than most GA aircraft. It is the peripherals and weapon systems that are difficult and complex to operate.

In WWII, it was the reverse. The aircraft were complicated to fly and the weapons easy to operate! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with the poster above that this is simply not true, general aviation aircraft have much milder stall and handling characteristics and move much slower. Also, flying in the gentle flight paths of GA may be relatively easy in a modern combat aircraft, but performing advanced combat maneouvers is what is extremely difficult about combat piloting, and what its all about. That is also my point - a GA pilot has little to no experience performing combat maneouvers, so how can he evaluate their efficacy, even against someone with experience solely on a simulator?

It is true that the systems on modern combat aircraft are far more complex than both their control in GA regime flight and GA aircraft, but performing advanced combat maneouvers requires another level of skill



All of this comes back to some simple points - why are you simply dismissing or ignoring what we have to tell you about how long it wouldve taken a WWII pilot to line up after a hard turn, or to line up for a head on, or how a pilot can prepare a non deflection shot on an aircraft currently inside a turn (and thus deflection shot) by predicting and lining up the point where they will exit the turn.

All of us who play this sim have seen this situation time and again, and it is not for waste of breath that we repeat to you that you are missing some crucial aspects of performing these strategies

Kettenhunde
05-25-2010, 07:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> PMSL .... that is the funniest thing I've read for many, many years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you should probably read some more then!

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/qu...0090915013348AAHPQre (http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090915013348AAHPQre)

Modern Jet fighters have such a high thrust to weight ratio and computer controlled fly by wire controls they are very hard to make a flying mistake in you cannot get out of....

A jet engine has less controls and is easier to operate too. Light the fires and kick the tires...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In a jet engine, thrust is determined by the amount of fuel injected into the combustion chamber. The power controls on most turbojet and turbofan powered airplanes consist of just one thrust lever for each engine, because most engine control functions are automatic. The thrust lever is linked to a fuel control and/or electronic engine computer that meters fuel flow based upon r.p.m., internal temperatures, ambient conditions, and other factors. [figure15-3] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.pilotoutlook.com/ai...ating_the_jet_engine (http://www.pilotoutlook.com/airplane_flying/operating_the_jet_engine)

irR4tiOn4L
05-25-2010, 07:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> PMSL .... that is the funniest thing I've read for many, many years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you should probably read some more then!

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/qu...0090915013348AAHPQre (http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090915013348AAHPQre)

Modern Jet fighters have such a high thrust to weight ratio and computer controlled fly by wire controls they are very hard to make a flying mistake in you cannot get out of....

A jet engine has less controls and is easier to operate too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kettenhunde, many of these aircraft are INHERENTLY UNSTABLE - they absolutely require fly by wire! Without it you could not fly them!

Also, they are designed to fly tremendously fast with high stall speeds and much harsher stall characteristics than GA.

Compare that to a gentle, stable, slow Cessna!


If your point was more that modern jets are easier to fly than WWII era fighters, then that is probably true. Of course, in that case i would say you probably shouldnt have said 'most GA aircraft' because thats probably how trashcanUK read your comment.


EDIT: It occurs to me that you probably meant by 'most GA aircraft' passenger, transport and charter jets - in which case it is probably true to say that in a GA flight regime, modern fighters are easier to fly and land than, say, a 747. I think trashcanuk didnt read it that way though

It is a matter for debate whether fighter jets performing combat maneouvers involve more difficulty than landing a 747 - i would argue they do, as with the right direction from the tower even a civilian can land a 747 - an amusing mythbusters episode focussed on this.

However, either way the skill sets between the two are clearly very different. If a generalisation can be made, it is that fighter pilots generally make good GA pilots, but GA pilots do not necessarily make good fighter pilots.

WTE_Galway
05-25-2010, 07:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

A jet engine has less controls and is easier to operate too. Light the fires and kick the tires...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


This is probably relevant http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkcX0KGIBwk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XVgCqsHi3g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxhSmeAqD0g

AndyJWest
05-25-2010, 07:31 PM
This is just plain comical - Kettenhunde is using Yahoo Answers as a reference!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Could a pilot from the 1940s fly a modern fighter jet?
If it was possible to time travel, and you took a f15 or eurofighter back with you would it be possible to train a pilot from the 1940s to fly it or would their apptitude and brain power be too low, bearing in mind there has been 50 years of human evolution.

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
Modern jets are probably easier to fly than WWII propeller planes.

With modern jets there in no torque effect from the propeller, they generate much more lift and you have an amazing system of avionics that can acually correct pilots mistakes and react faster than the pilot himself can.
Plus youve got missiles that can be fired from miles away, you can shoot down planes before they even see you.

So your question should be, could modern jet fighter pilots fly and fight in WWII era guns only combat with propeller driven aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a reliable source for answers to technical aviation questions? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Kettenhunde
05-25-2010, 07:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That is also my point - a GA pilot has little to no experience performing combat maneouvers, so how can he evaluate their efficacy, even against someone with experience solely on a simulator? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


There is not anything in a "combat maneuver" that isn't practiced in normal aerobatics.

Chandelles, Immelmanns, Hammerheads, and other manuvers are easy to do.

In fact, I had a P51 Pilot who flew with the 8th USAAF who used to own the plane I have show me a few things. It was a very good experience and no I am not near the pilot he is Irrational. That man went from props to jets and flew jets when they required a very good pilot at the controls.

It was a great time and I learned a lot. I now have even more things to practice.

I took this gentleman up a few weeks ago. His name is Phillip Lacey. He originally trained for low level recon in a P39 series, moved on to become an advanced fighter instructor at Eglin AFB flying P-40's, and in the end flew a P51 with the 8th AF. He owned my airplane for 19 years before I bought it and the G meter in it came out of his Mustang removed on VE day.

He even designed a car after the war.

http://bortzautocollection.com/old_s...sept112006.pdf

He is 89 years old. As we got a ladder to get him up on wing and I had to help him in, I thought it might be a mistake to take him up again. I did not want to endanger his health or see him injured. Really had me worried.

When I took off from KCEW Bob Sikes and the moment I checked in with Eglin they came back with clearance for a 15NM x 15NM from ground to 10,000 feet maneuver box for just us. The FBO had called them while we where taxi'ing.

When I looked at Phil and said, "You've got the airplane." He transformed from an 89 year old man into a 25 year old Fighter Pilot again. The precision in which he could maneuver the aircraft from one end of the envelope to the other in mere seconds was amazing. At one point he looked at me and asked if I was comfortable with this.

My exact words, "Phil, you just fly the plane and I will sit here and try not to scream like a girl." What a great experience for both of us. It was really neat to hear, "this is what I did once to get a Focke Wulf off my tail." and then find yourself going from Vmax to upside down at zero airspeed to Vne to back too the same speed, altitude, and heading in just seconds.

Taxing in to pick up Phil:

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3033/img0530n.jpg (http://img441.imageshack.us/i/img0530n.jpg/)

Phil with a big grin as he knows he is about to get some stick time again.

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/5223/img0532u.jpg (http://img101.imageshack.us/i/img0532u.jpg/)

deepo_HP
05-25-2010, 07:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Kettenhunde, i would put it to you that there was a lot more to the man than just his EM theory! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>i reread the last 3 pages of this thread two times and couldn't find the part where Kettenhunde or someone else made any comment on John Boyd, stating that Boyd was 'just' noteworthy for his EM theory.
i found a post about Boyd on page 24 though which points out his merits as he added aspects of science to pilot's training.
maybe i have missed the part which you are relating to, or maybe i failed to read between lines or maybe i just have no sense for the subtleness of english/american - in which case please help me and give me a hint where i can find anyone's claims to be as qualified as Boyd and that 'only' by Boyd's EM-theory?
furthermore, would you say that the described manoeuvre, called 'flat-plating the bird', was anything that could or should have been taught in the classroom? is it your opinion that the manoeuvre would or should be scheduled for training of new pilots? and then, how would you consider the rate of success if Boyd had taught such kinds of manoeuvres with the aim of improving new pilot's skills?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
You see, Boyd understood the art as well as the science, and thats what makes an excellent fighter pilot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>where has this been disputed?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
You only understand the science, and thats where you keep going wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>so do you 'understand' the art? frankly, i doubt that anyone can 'understand' the art if not at least having practised the art himself. do you think that this kind of 'art' - or any kind of 'art' - can be drilled? frankly, i always considered 'art' as the product of proper use of tools and a gifted person's talent. it can be admired, but hardly it can be taught. what can be taught though is the part of making good use of the tools to create art (if the talent is sufficient)... and i would consider the physics of flying as an important tool to perform combat art, given the talent. the kind of natural talent who is born to be a fighter is just so rare that it can't be anything to build a training on! for the less gifted and not so talented, the state of art might be far and the knowledge of facts a good and maybe only help. i am also pretty sure that even of those few which we like to consider combat-artists several are more legend than true.
Boyd's EM theory is the one and only heritage to the actual training of pilots... the 'flat-plating thing' is subject of admiration, tales and anecdotes about Boyd, the artist. perhaps it can be used for meditational practices as well.

from my understanding, kettenhunde's contributions related in most parts explicitely to the scientific approach. i haven't found him denying the existence of talent and art in combat or the importance of the individual pilot at all. i also haven't seen him posting much about evaluation between the 'science' and the 'art' of flying fighters - instead i had the impression that he just considers science to be true and reliable in (mearly) all cases, opposite to any 'art' which most of us will never witness. so i'd like to know if you consider yourself to be able to understand the art and why would that be? then i'd like to know how you realised that Kettenhunde 'only' understands science... with emphasis on 'only'.
this last point is meant quite seriously by me, since i sometimes think that i am not capable enough to understand the language. in fact, i posted this not at least for the reason that i seemed to miss some of the context (also due to the ridiculous layout of this forum's software - just to mention it)


edit:
i am not the fastest either... i had to see, that some additional content has been added and more posts been made.
i need to read them later - if my post appears unnecessary by the new content, pls excuse me and don't bother.

AndyJWest
05-25-2010, 08:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When I looked at Phil and said, "You've got the airplane." He transformed from an 89 year old man into a 25 year old Fighter Pilot again. The precision in which he could maneuver the aircraft from one end of the envelope to the other in mere seconds was amazing. At one point he looked at me and asked if I was comfortable with this.

My exact words, "Phil, you just fly the plane and I will sit here and try not to scream like a girl." What a great experience for both of us. It was really neat to hear, "this is what I did once to get a Focke Wulf off my tail." and then find yourself going from Vmax to upside down at zero airspeed to Vne to back too the same speed, altitude, and heading in just seconds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very nice Kettenhunde. The next time you see him, ask him which formulae he used in a dogfight.

WTE_Galway
05-25-2010, 08:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:

Very nice Kettenhunde. The next time you see him, ask him which formulae he used in a dogfight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The math is just tool of trade for a pilot, it goes without saying.

While it may not fit the fantasies of most online gamer types who like to believe its all about having the "right stuff" and gaming can somehow give that to you and qualify you to fly for real without ever having to study anything, most professional pilots I have known over the years use the math automatically, its second nature.

EDIT: On a semi related note. I think its also important to point out that the characteristics most gamers (and many Hollywood movie scripts) see as making a "hot" combat pilot, would disqualify anyone from ever joining any real world airforce. You would be almost certainly flagged as a "seat of the pants" maverick inclined to solo exploits, far to prone to following intuition rather than procedure and clearly unsuited to the responsibilities of command. A real world airforce wants calm cool highly trained professionals in charge of their multi million dollar weapon systems, not barn stormers.

na85
05-25-2010, 08:54 PM
Andy and Irrational are two of the people I had in mind when I posted this:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...461015268#4461015268 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3631050558?r=4461015268#4461015268)

AndyJWest
05-25-2010, 09:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The math is just tool of trade for a pilot </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Absolutely. An inappropriate tool to use in the middle of a dogfight.

From all I've seen, combat flying is neither an art nor a science, but a craft - a mixture of technical knowledge and hands-on experience. In the middle of a dogfight, abstract mathematics is no more appropriate than it would be when driving a car at its limits, or riding a bicycle, or playing table-tennis. It takes far too long to calculate, you have to react. And as you practise reacting, you learn. Or more accurately, your body does - The more abstract part of your brain analyses what you should do, and the rest becomes almost automatic...

And no, I've never flown a plane. I have however done quite enough other things, and watched others do the same, to see that this ridiculous 'art' vs 'science' distinction has little to do with how anyone actually does anything. Or did Kettenhunde have to learn physics before he learned to walk?

WTE_Galway
05-25-2010, 09:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:

Absolutely. An inappropriate tool to use in the middle of a dogfight.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

RAAF Pilot entry requirement:

" - able to perform complex cognitive tasks while carrying out precise manual activities"

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/...itionalRequirements/ (http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/airforce/jobs/Pilot/AdditionalRequirements/)

Professional pilots are not rodeo cowboys.

Kettenhunde
05-25-2010, 09:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The next time you see him, ask him which formulae he used in a dogfight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite a bit actually. He taught other pilots air to air combat and is a talented engineer.

Phil is an excellent pilot and no, he is nothing like the Hollyweird depiction of fighter pilots or the fantasy notions some folks have in there heads.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> While it may not fit the fantasies of most online gamer types who like to believe its all about having the "right stuff" and gaming can somehow give that to you and qualify you to fly for real without ever having to study anything, most professional pilots I have known over the years use the math automatically, its second nature </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Deepo_HP, Na85, and WTE_Galloway...it is nice to know people do read these threads and understand what is going on.

Kettenhunde
05-25-2010, 10:10 PM
Hilarious, and very true!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkcX0KGIBwk

I can't wait to here our BMW801 roar to life.

I just realized the link is broken to Phil's car, here is a good one:

http://bortzautocollection.com..._cars_sept112006.pdf (http://bortzautocollection.com/old_site/news/custom_sept11/custom_cars_sept112006.pdf)

AndyJWest
05-25-2010, 10:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">able to perform complex cognitive tasks while carrying out precise manual activities </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Isn't that what I've just described? Or do these 'complex cognitive tasks' actually involve arriving at numeric solutions to formulae? The only examples of such formulae I've seen so far are Kettenhunde's trivial fuel consumption and ammunition usage ones, and I hardly need to point out how inappropriate these are (not that the Luftwaffe seems to have trusted it's pilots with ammo usage calculations - hence the gauges).

I have no doubt whatsoever that modern fighter pilots need a level of mathematical competence above that of the general population. That isn't the same thing as saying they'd use it in a dogfight, and still less a WW II pilot.

Kettenhunde
05-25-2010, 10:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The only examples of such formulae I've seen so far are Kettenhunde's trivial fuel consumption and ammunition usage ones, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are conveniently leaving out the part about the understanding that comes from working the other formulas. That is what lends insight into how things work and allows a good pilot to extract maximum performance from the aircraft.

That is why the physics is so heavily emphasized in the real world.

Fuel consumption and ammunition is only trivial if you don't want to get home or defend yourself, btw. Especially when you only have a few seconds of fire and move from burning 35 gallons per hour to ~230 gallons per hour. You can quickly find yourself without enough fuel to get home.

AndyJWest
05-25-2010, 10:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The only examples of such formulae I've seen so far are Kettenhunde's trivial fuel consumption and ammunition usage ones, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are conveniently leaving out the part about the understanding that comes from working the other formulas. That is what lends insight into how things work and allows a good pilot to extract maximum performance from the aircraft.

That is why the physics is so heavily emphasized in the real world.

Fuel consumption and ammunition is only trivial if you don't want to get home or defend yourself, btw. Especially when you only have a few seconds of fire and move from burning 35 gallons per hour to ~230 gallons per hour. You can quickly find yourself without enough fuel to get home. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And you are 'conveniently leaving out' the very point I'm making - that in a combat situation, you don't have the cognitive capacity (or arguably the need) to arrive at numerical solutions to formulae. You are absolutely right about 'insight' but this is because it becomes ingrained, and doesn't need analysis to carry out - no formulae, no mathematical solutions, just doing what you have learned. If you are good at this, you can 'observe' what you do, and learn lessons for later, but that isn't the same thing as analysing things on an abstract mathematical level before you act.

And yes, I know that running out of fuel in a dogfight isn't a good idea. I also know that you can't predict future consumption from present usage. And come to that WW II fighter aircraft didn't usually have fuel flow gauges anyway, so any 'calculations' would be estimations based on experience, not formulae.

deepo_HP
05-25-2010, 11:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
From all I've seen, combat flying is neither an art nor a science, but a craft - a mixture of technical knowledge and hands-on experience.
I have however done quite enough other things, ... to see that this ridiculous 'art' vs 'science' distinction has little to do with how anyone actually does anything. Or did Kettenhunde have to learn physics before he learned to walk? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> well, this 'ridiculous art vs science thing' has been brought up by irrational in my opinion, so i wonder why you connect it to kettenhunde here? if you have done quite enough things, you should have the routine to reply more precisely in threads which you are engaged in - however, some of your posts here and off-topic snippets in other subforums start looking more like a mobbing campaign anyway!

i agree for most with your statement on combat flying - knowledge and experience are basic elements! that is why i replied to irrational, since i found his mentioning of 'art' a bit too poetical (besides i didn't understand why he brought it up at all). if you prefer to call it 'technical knowledge' instead of 'science', 'math', 'physics' or whatever is less bothering to me. i guess, i can live with that as well.

since i don't know if you still interested in any kind of discussion or rather want to go on with general bashing, i am not sure what expectations i should have in further posting my views on 'hands-on experience'. besides my lack of interest to make the efforts of chosing the distinguished terms of your acceptance.


<span class="ev_code_GREEN">edit (to all, purely self-explanative):
i think i said it before... i have found this thread an interesting read. like others of many pages, it may not always stay on topic, but nevertheless reveals good details i never thought of, and it is entertaining - as in following the argumental course between major contributors. the latter might include personal tendencies up to a point where the discussion gets stuck. i think - or hope - this point should not been reached yet.
i admit, my posts were probably unlucky personal comments on too personal arguments. since i don't think i can add much to the main topic i better stay with read-only - which i still would like to do.

and the colour-choices in this forum are so not usable!</span>

RegRag1977
05-25-2010, 11:07 PM
Trigonometry, can be useful too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

irR4tiOn4L
05-26-2010, 01:16 AM
Deepo, what i was pointing out is that Boyd was also an exceptional pilot, and his success was not purely due to his EM theory - as is Kettenhunde's friend Phil. Such pilots evaluate combat maneouver efficacy by more than just the EM theories they publish. There is a whole range of extra skills that are needed - and thats why i say that a GA pilot is no better placed to say whether a Fw could reverse and perform an effective attack on a spitfire than a virtual IL2 pilot!

The reason i am on about this, which you seem to have missed, is that Kettenhunde has indicated his belief that simulators cannot produce any valid data, and as such has ignored such data throughout this discussion.

As someone who is working toward a qualification in GA and plays IL2, i would dispute that learning to fly a cessna in any way qualifies me to make comments about whether a maneouver in a FW is or is not a good combat maneouver. Instead it is my IL2 time that helps me say that, and i believe the simulation should not be dismissed lightly.


But Phil would obviously be an even better placed source to answer these questions - why dont you ask him casually one day what he thinks of reversing on an enemy trailing 1500m behind, Kettenhunde

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deepo_HP:
well, this 'ridiculous art vs science thing' has been brought up by irrational in my opinion, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats simple not the case. Allow me to point out what i was responding to

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Posted in last page of previous thread by Kettenhunde
quote:
Throughout this thread you have rejected very valid observations, and simulations, in preference of your own largely theoretical knowledge. You have not demonstrated the kind of deeper understanding of deflection that would be needed from a combat pilot,



quote:
Boyd was equally famous in the classroom where he developed the "Aerial Attack Study." Until Boyd came along, fighter pilots thought that air combat was an art rather than a science; that it could never be codified. Boyd proved them wrong when he demonstrated that for every maneuver there is a series of counter maneuvers. And there is a counter to every counter. Afterwards, when fighter pilots attacked (or were attacked), they knew every option open to their adversary and how to respond.



quote:
Until Boyd came along, fighter pilots thought that air combat was an art rather than a science;


Sounds like some gamers I know....


quote:
After the study was declassified, foreign pilots passing through Nellis took it home where it changed the way every air force in the world flies and fights. Even today, more than 40 years later, nothing substantial has been added to the Aerial Attack Study.
http://www.aviation-history.com/airmen/boyd.htm
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
Andy and Irrational are two of the people I had in mind when I posted this:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...461015268#4461015268 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3631050558?r=4461015268#4461015268) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, thanks. So not getting even a straight answer when you are misquoted, let alone to a whole series of reasons that are crucial to the topic, and pointing that out, makes me the bad guy.

Cheers

Fact is theres quite a few of us here who know that and know why some of Kettenhunde's arguments hold no water. Why is it incumbent on us to sit idly by as the value of the simulation and the distinctions that Kettenhunde does not take account of are rubbished?

Ive lost sight of none of these arguments - ive quoted back 10 pages or more in cases to show what the original argument contained. Some others, on the other hand, have misquoted something said as little as two pages back

julian265
05-26-2010, 02:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
Andy and Irrational are two of the people I had in mind when I posted this: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The topic of any thread longer than a few pages evolves, and that's normal and unnavoidable.

What you stated certainly occurs, however I don't think you can point the finger at one 'side' of the debate here. The number of times Kettenhunde "corrects" things that weren't said, or takes a comment in a completely different context than was clear when it was made, makes it obvious that he does this purposefully (and has been doing so for some time). This leaves a sour taste, and the quality of discussion is reduced. I don't see a problem with people responding negatively to this, but rather the reasons why Kettenhunde responds as he does to anyone who isn't simply asking questions, or bowing to his opinion.

julian265
05-26-2010, 03:01 AM
Having said that, I guess it's also relevant to mention that there was a post I made a while ago, whilst in a similar type of thread, which I had edited to correct a detail (something to do with a person's name IIRC).

Kettenhunde's next post implied that my edit was to tone down my post, or remove some insult. I ask you, what person with straight motives does that? How am I meant to react?

RegRag1977
05-26-2010, 03:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:


Instead it is my IL2 time that helps me say that, and i believe the simulation should not be dismissed lightly.


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see what you mean irR4tiOn4L, but isn't it a danger to take a simulator's environment for reality? What if some parameters are not correct or if the Flight models are wrong for instance?

IL2 is really good but it could hardly be called simulator (it's rather a complex FPS game, to me)

M_Gunz
05-26-2010, 03:30 AM
Consider the differences in choices during combat between a pilot who has never worked out the science as well
as the implications and one who has whether on his own or as part of a formal education. It's not just a matter
of speculation, it's a matter of historic record and the reason not only why there are schools like Top Gun but
that the methods keep getting refined and expanded along the same lines they started with. Graduates using those
methods average much better than the ones who who do not.

If you think in terms of energy not as a generalized idea but in precise ways then you handle it better. You
don't have to work out the decimals while you're doing it or spend time thinking about dead-end concepts such
as 'energy retention'. You can see first approximations as they happen and don't get fooled into the equivalent
of buying lottery tickets because 'certain numbers haven't come up lately and are due'.

Scientific and technical knowledge worked out over and over make a pilot harder to fool. He or she is not going
to be thinking the kinds of things behind what you see in many complaint posts in forums like this such as the
idea that the person you are pulling lead on in a chase must be blacking out just because you are as well as
ideas much much more subtle but just as if not more important when it comes to being caught out surprised.

Do you buy lottery tickets based on predicting future numbers by what's come up in the last month or six or do
you understand probability enough (less than an hour if you can already 'do numbers', maybe never if you can't)
to avoid paying the 'bad at math tax'? That's just one example that I think should be easy for most people here.
...
Just trying to point out that there's 'commonsense' guesses based on fuzzy thinking equal to old wives tales and
there are actually educated guesses based on having thoroughly worked out the science and having applied same in
practice many times before, because one without the other isn't enough.

If your basic principles are wrong then the guy who knows right can get better than you with practice even if you
practice much, much longer. You will have limited yourself in ways you'll never see and probably defend to death.
It doesn't mean that guy will always be right or win every time or come home from every mission -- it just means
he is more likely to and much less likely to find himself in a situation of deep confusion.

Blue_5
05-26-2010, 03:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And you are 'conveniently leaving out' the very point I'm making - that in a combat situation, you don't have the cognitive capacity (or arguably the need) to arrive at numerical solutions to formulae. You are absolutely right about 'insight' but this is because it becomes ingrained, and doesn't need analysis to carry out - no formulae, no mathematical solutions, just doing what you have learned. If you are good at this, you can 'observe' what you do, and learn lessons for later, but that isn't the same thing as analysing things on an abstract mathematical level before you act.

And yes, I know that running out of fuel in a dogfight isn't a good idea. I also know that you can't predict future consumption from present usage. And come to that WW II fighter aircraft didn't usually have fuel flow gauges anyway, so any 'calculations' would be estimations based on experience, not formulae. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Andy, I think you're wrong about this because you are considering the processing of these formulae concerning speed, altitude, energy, fuel usage and so forth as though they were completed using a pen, paper and slide rule. We all calculate formulae in our heads every day in ‘mentalease’; we might not consciously arrive at a numerical figure but we nevertheless arrive at a result which we use. Sometimes we mentally walk ourselves through the calculation, mentally pronouncing each part of the calculation, but a lot of time we use what we know from experience and fast track the process to arrive at our best estimation. This is undertaken so rapidly and with so little conscious effort that to us it feels like ‘insight’ but we are using the building blocks of, say Newtonian physics, to play tennis. Part of learning to fly a military aircraft these days involves extensive training in these kinds of subjects because a pilot is expected to make very complex calculations quickly and without needing to engage his consciousness

The difference, and what I think Kettenhunde is trying to say, is that it is vital that a pilot can make the mental calculations about what is aircraft is doing not necessarily to arrive at a precise figure but to keep on top of a rapidly changing situation. These calculations have to be instinctive and virtually unconscious but they translate in to a deep understanding of the aircraft and what is possible in a given situation. An RAF instructor with whom I flew had around 10,000 hours over 30 years and he literally could give you a verbal answer to various aerodynamic calculations while flying a manoeuvre but he was possible something of an exception.

I also think Kettenhunde is right about modern combat aircraft being easier to fly; they are programmed so as not to depart from controlled flight and to protect their pilots from doing something inadvertently stupid (possibly the biggest killer in non-combat situations). They also have endless reserves of thrust. However, flying them to their limit can be unforgiving due to the need to be thinking so far ahead of your current situation, which is why you get ongoing losses in training

irR4tiOn4L
05-26-2010, 03:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That is also my point - a GA pilot has little to no experience performing combat maneouvers, so how can he evaluate their efficacy, even against someone with experience solely on a simulator? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


There is not anything in a "combat maneuver" that isn't practiced in normal aerobatics.

Chandelles, Immelmanns, Hammerheads, and other manuvers are easy to do.

In fact, I had a P51 Pilot who flew with the 8th USAAF who used to own the plane I have show me a few things. It was a very good experience and no I am not near the pilot he is Irrational. That man went from props to jets and flew jets when they required a very good pilot at the controls.

It was a great time and I learned a lot. I now have even more things to practice.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On a seperate note, you certainly make a good point here that having someone like Phil showing you how its done is invaluable. No dispute there, thats certainly very valuable and once in a lifetime stuff that you cant get with a simulator.

Unfortunately i am considerably younger than yourself, and as a result have not yet had the chance, and probably never will, of flying with the veterans. My grandfather was a fighter pilot in the 50s with the Czechoslovakian air force, and it would have been wonderful to fly with him, had i achieved a PPL earlier. Alas, he has passed away, though we had some great discussions when i visited him in Europe over the last four years.

I certainly understand where you are coming from when you say there is nothing that can replace these experts.

Having said that, its a different aircraft, no guns and no enemy chasing you - things that are at least approximated in the simulator. The vet knows what thats like, but for someone in the co-pilots seat its still only a glimpse. There are simply certain things, like where and how to fire and what a pilot behind you can or will do, that you only learn by experience (within the realms of physics of course). And it is my opinion that whether that experience comes from the rarest and most valuable source - the real thing, or from the mouth of an expert, or at least from a simulator, it is always valuable.

Thats why i think IL2 holds tremendous value, and i dont think its fair to label it as of nominal value. Sure, its only a simulator - and yet it amply demonstrates these concepts and what is wrong with things like a 1500m reversal, where 20+ pages of this thread have not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag1977:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:


Instead it is my IL2 time that helps me say that, and i believe the simulation should not be dismissed lightly.


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see what you mean irR4tiOn4L, but isn't it a danger to take a simulator's environment for reality? What if some parameters are not correct or if the Flight models are wrong for instance?

IL2 is really good but it could hardly be called simulator (it's rather a complex FPS game, to me) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely, there is a GREAT danger - this knowledge must always be tempered with the real experience, and replaced by it where appropriate. But while thats possible for general aviation, how can you do that for things like deflection shooting?

It simply must be the case that i rely on my IL2 experience when i say a particular shot should be taken in some way, or given some particular space of time and seperation. How else can i explain why its impossible to aim an aircraft in 250m and 1.5 seconds from the enemy?

I would say IL2 is clearly a simulator, although it has flaws of course. In terms of turn performance, i give more weight to Kettenhunde's figures than IL2 (although it proves fairly close).

However, there are certain skills like gunnery on a closing target that simply need to be tried in a simulator. Theres few other ways to approximate it

irR4tiOn4L
05-26-2010, 04:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Consider the differences in choices during combat between a pilot who has never worked out the science as well
as the implications and one who has whether on his own or as part of a formal education. It's not just a matter
of speculation, it's a matter of historic record and the reason not only why there are schools like Top Gun but
that the methods keep getting refined and expanded along the same lines they started with. Graduates using those
methods average much better than the ones who who do not.

If you think in terms of energy not as a generalized idea but in precise ways then you handle it better. You
don't have to work out the decimals while you're doing it or spend time thinking about dead-end concepts such
as 'energy retention'. You can see first approximations as they happen and don't get fooled into the equivalent
of buying lottery tickets because 'certain numbers haven't come up lately and are due'.

Scientific and technical knowledge worked out over and over make a pilot harder to fool. He or she is not going
to be thinking the kinds of things behind what you see in many complaint posts in forums like this such as the
idea that the person you are pulling lead on in a chase must be blacking out just because you are as well as
ideas much much more subtle but just as if not more important when it comes to being caught out surprised.

Do you buy lottery tickets based on predicting future numbers by what's come up in the last month or six or do
you understand probability enough (less than an hour if you can already 'do numbers', maybe never if you can't)
to avoid paying the 'bad at math tax'? That's just one example that I think should be easy for most people here.
...
Just trying to point out that there's 'commonsense' guesses based on fuzzy thinking equal to old wives tales and
there are actually educated guesses based on having thoroughly worked out the science and having applied same in
practice many times before, because one without the other isn't enough.

If your basic principles are wrong then the guy who knows right can get better than you with practice even if you
practice much, much longer. You will have limited yourself in ways you'll never see and probably defend to death.
It doesn't mean that guy will always be right or win every time or come home from every mission -- it just means
he is more likely to and much less likely to find himself in a situation of deep confusion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but who disputed that a pilot needs to understand physics? Not only do most IL2 'pilots' think in terms of the physics, but almost everyone here accepts that an understanding of physics is crucial - both in GA and particularly in combat piloting.


Its just that understanding the physics, and being able to draw the situation in EM theory, is not enough, for example, to evaluate a 1500m reversal.

Theres also some experience you need to draw on, like the experience of trying to aim after a high g turn in 250m and a couple of seconds.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
..because one without the other isn't enough </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is basically my point - that great pilots dont just understand the physics, theyve also done the hard yards in terms of practise and understand the motor and psychological skills needed.

An academic and particularly a GA pilot, can understand the physics, but they just dont have a chance to try things like gunnery - at least IL2 gives some idea how this works, enough to say that its BLOODY hard in WWII aircraft, and you need a lot of space to aim for a head on

M_Gunz
05-26-2010, 05:46 AM
If you work on gunnery as a timing problem and understand what's going on with trajectories and sight lines
then you'll be able to improve your shooting. Uhhh, that's about understanding the physics as well as practice. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

FatCat_99
05-26-2010, 06:53 AM
Here is what RL pilot and experienced simmer have to say about returning to the fight after extending.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Let’s visualize an extension with the bandit attempting to catch us. I’ve made some rough rules of thumb for you to consider based on turning performance. I’ll assume that we can complete the 180 degree turn around in 10-15 seconds. During that time, the bandit will be closing on us. This figure shows the situation:
Figure 20 - How Far Do You Extend?
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_025u.html

Next, I’ll choose two types of bandits…a WW2 type at 300mph and a modern jet at 600KIAS. These speeds allow me to compute how far the bandits travel in the time that it takes us to turn around (I’ll average the distance for the 10-15 second period). By rounding the numbers off, I come up with a distance of 1nm (6000’) for the WW2 fighter and about 2nm (12000’) for the jet fighter. I then add my desired distance at roll out and end up with approximate values of 2nm for a WW2 situation and 4nm for a jet situation. These are just rough values, but they do give you a feel for the time/distance relationship of the turn back maneuver.

How do you know when you are at these ranges? Many sims offer target labels that gives you bandit range. I do not look upon these as a cheat since the depth perception and ability to depict fine graphical detail is lacking in our sims. If the video picture allowed us to recognize and measure range as easily as can be done in real life, then I would not favor labels…but that is not the case.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The reason why I went through this math drill was to show you that the distances are not as close as some might imagine. In order to effectively return to the fight, you must get substantial separation prior to initiating the turn back. One cautionary note – these are real world approximates.</span>They are based on specific turn rates. Your sim flight model may or may not use real world turn rates…we have all seen bandits do some amazing turns and reversals in our sims. In those cases where a sim’s flight model is suspect, only trial and error will produce an answer to the question of "how far is far enough".

One last caution. If you are going to err in this estimation of when to turn back, err on the conservative side. Extending too far is much better than not far enough. What may happen if you do not go out far enough? Quite simply, the bandit has the opportunity to rejoin on you in your turn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Andy Bush's short biography:
http://www.simhq.com/_aboutus/bush.html

Snippet I quoted is part of this article:
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_024a.html
and is valuable read for any combat flight sim fan, just like anything written by A.Bush.

FC

orville07
05-26-2010, 07:52 AM
Kettenhunde, you say that Boyd was the first to codify principles and truths of aerial combat, but this is not strictly true. Ok, based on pure mathematics yes.

As far back as WWI Edward 'Mick' Mannock distributed his '15 rules' to fellow pilots and told them frequently when in attack, make it "always above; seldom on the same level; never underneath." as well as "Don't ever attempt to dog-fight a triplane on anything like equal terms as regards height, otherwise he will get on your tail and stay there until he shoots you down."

Manfred Von Richthofen famously said "all that is below me is lost". Point being? These people understood what Boyd calls "E-Manoeuvrability" instinctively with the application of COMMON SENSE (using the greatest 'computer' of them all, the noggin lol), and with no need for a convoluted and overly complex equation to explain the blindingly obvious.

Ask them the difference between potential and kinetic energy however, and they would look at you with a blank expression or think you were a nutter lol. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Maybe its a throwback to Mans evolved spatial abilities, which is why men are better at throwing spears than women and calculate "spear deflection" (lol) and wind factor naturally, no need for a text book formula! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

If I take a left handed swipe at an apple on my desk I know pretty much what will happen to it.

I'm sure you could furnish us all with a mathematical equation including mass and gravity and inertia blah blah blah as to why, but the truth is I don't need to know. I can easily predict the outcome with prior observation and using common sense. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ok, being a bit flippant, yes of course the 'science' aspect is important, including geometry....but it is not the 'Alpha and Omega'. Much of what you are saying has merit. What you are NOT however is the 'omniscient narrator' of this scene, and neither is the FW pilot! You have hindsight and detachment. Its a wonderful thing but does not help the FW guy.

The point is that WWII they had no way of knowing the precise flight state of an opponent, AOT etc, much less what they were facing till close.

The last thing on their minds if bounced would be doing a complex mathematical equation in their head for 'optimal response', their primary concern would be staying alive by any means necessary.

You are not including the human element in your 'absolutes' and 'data analysis'. Human beings are inherently fallible (yourself excluded of course? lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif Jk ). It is human to err. People are not robots or dispassionate automatons. This seems to be lost on you in your computations.

Didn't a USAAF pilot say something like 'The man who wins is the one who makes the fewer gross mistakes'? Don't recall the name, quote may not be exact. He understood that human beings make errors of judgement and calculations all the time.

Given, the purpose of modern day training is to ensure these 'optimal responses' to a given situation become natural and reflexive. All sensible, well and good. But take the 'Cope India' 2004 Red Flag exercise as a case in point. The USAF had built up a computational 'model' of how they expected the IAF to perform, including an analysis of their opponents presumably based upon Boyds immutable laws which you say are still taught.

They called their training concept 'Red Air' and it resulted in a catastrophic and humiliating defeat by the IAF. (10-1 IAF kill ratio) Many factors as to why, but the chief being they had gravely MISCALCULATED and UNDERESTIMATED their opponents and they got their precious infallible sums WRONG.

They did not anticipate that IAF elements and single pilots in 1-1 situations would change tactics and approach on the fly. They were unable to respond due to rigidity and inflexibility of learned and 'programmed' tactics and structure. Same mistake arguably made by the RAF in early stages of the BOB. The mighty F-15C was humbled by among others the Mig-21 Bison (of which they would have had intimate performance knowledge and applied the teachings of Boyd?)

Boyd could not save them. Why would this be? Because the 'math' is only half of the story. Because in a dogfight there are no absolutes, at least those which a human being can be expected to calculate within milliseconds. Even Stephen Hawking (with robotic arms and legs presumably http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) in a Spit would not be capable of such feats of mental agility. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

There is a reason Hartmann concluded that "Dogfighting is a waste of time". He would have no interest whatsoever in your equations, however clever they are. Gunnery ability was paramount in WWII (and WWI), not manoeuvring ability. Most of those killed did not know what had hit them.

WWII Italian pilots are a case in point. Many great aerobatic pilots who could no doubt pull of flawless 10 score chandelle's, and other pretty things. This does not help them, however, when they get shot in the head.

Suddenly, their "E-Manoeuvrability" has been compromised. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Crumpp, you are a clever guy I will give you that (I may have went a little OTT in a previous post, but I'm just ribbing you man http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

Its just that at times you come across as thinking you know the answer to life, the Universe and everything. This may not be your intent, or even your real personality, but its how it sometimes comes across. Nobody is always right. I may have picked you up wrong, easy to do with just the written word. If so, apologies. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So to conclude my ramblings, its a bit of both. Science yes, pilotage and hence 'artistry', most certainly too.

It remains that the most expedient and sensible thing for the FW pilot to do both in game and real life is to extend, take stock and reassess.

Gadje summed this up earlier (Scottish lad and one of the best virtual dogfighters out there in my opinion, he is very good) in a few words.

What you said he COULD do re: turning is irrelevant to the OP, and a mistake. It places him at an increasing disadvantage on balance of probability/likely outcome. I am still bemused as to why you would even suggest this. End of story.

In my inexpert and humble opinion, of course. I'm not always right either, I just THINK I am. Hehehe. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Exeunt!

Kettenhunde
05-26-2010, 09:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By rounding the numbers off, I come up with a distance of 1nm (6000’) for the WW2 fighter and about 2nm (12000’) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The nautical mile (symbol M, NM, Nm or nmi) is a unit of length corresponding approximately to one minute of arc of latitude along any meridian. By international agreement it is exactly 1,852 meters (approximately 6,076 feet). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I’ll assume that we can complete the 180 degree turn around in 10-15 seconds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a good article and you guys should read it.

Keep in mind our Focke Wulf can reverse in about ~8.5 seconds so the 1500 meters is right at the mark IAW your posted article.

Boy this part looks really familiar!

http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_024m.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> At its best turn rate, it would take the Spitfire ~22 seconds to advance 180 degrees through the turning circle and the Spitfire must slow down to ~65KEAS &lt;120KPH&gt; slower speed than the Focke Wulf to achieve that turn rate.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...241097248#1241097248 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2891026238?r=1241097248#1241097248)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I would say IL2 is clearly a simulator, although it has flaws of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMHO, compared to others out there, the combination of graphics, gameplay, and variety put IL2 head and shoulders above the rest. The FM physics have all the same short-comings as the others. That being said, IL2 moves to the front of the pack in some of the details and behaviors it does try to reproduce. For example, rudder usage is not exactly correct. At least you have to pay attention to it and it instills the correct mindset in the player. In that sense it is much better than even MSFS IMHO.

When you must think like a pilot to play, you are simulating a pilot.

That is where these games fall way short of being a simulator in instilling that mindset.

Speeds for example is the major mindset failure. That is obvious from the resistance and number of times the topic of turn performance has come up.

Real pilots understand that maximum performance occurs at a specific velocity. When I hit turbulence or fly near weather, immediately I put the airplane at maneuver speed or gust penetration speed.

When landing, real pilots establish Vref or approach speed and concentrate on maintaining that.

Fighter pilots do the exact same thing. They understand maximum performance occurs at a specific velocity. They know what the best rate, radius, maneuver speed, and best load factor turn speeds for their aircraft. They understand they can convert excess velocity to PE by converting to altitude and excess altitude into load factor for instantaneous performance gains to make the kill or conserve their PE until the moment presents itself.

If a "simulator" does not instill the correct mindset, it does not simulate very well.

M_Gunz
05-26-2010, 11:31 AM
Most sim players don't bother with learning the ground school basics, perhaps you shouldn't judge a sim based
on what they say or do huh?

As far as fighter pilot mindset, I knew former and active fighter pilots flying online sims since I started
online with Red Baron 2 and those with the mindset worked it just fine then. IL2 is more realistic by far.

Bremspropeller
05-26-2010, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Kettenhunde, many of these aircraft are INHERENTLY UNSTABLE - they absolutely require fly by wire! Without it you could not fly them!

Also, they are designed to fly tremendously fast with high stall speeds and much harsher stall characteristics than GA.

Compare that to a gentle, stable, slow Cessna! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Google "carefree handling" and "Eurofighter" and have a nice evening.

Or equally, google "A320" and "Normal Law Protections".
Same here.

Both planes can be effectively flown by complete dorks.

There's propably no other aircraft that is as easy to fly as a FBW-Airbus - as long as you're keeping it in the middle between sky and earth and you're not doing stupid stuff.

Flipping through a checklist, getting to know the aircraft and different modes of every sub-system is another story - but that's not related to the ease of "stick and rudder"-flying.

Bremspropeller
05-26-2010, 12:47 PM
Airbus Flight-Control Laws:
http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm


Example of AoA-Protection saving the day:
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2010/AAR1003.pdf (page 97)

na85
05-26-2010, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by julian265:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
Andy and Irrational are two of the people I had in mind when I posted this: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The topic of any thread longer than a few pages evolves, and that's normal and unnavoidable.

What you stated certainly occurs, however I don't think you can point the finger at one 'side' of the debate here. The number of times Kettenhunde "corrects" things that weren't said, or takes a comment in a completely different context than was clear when it was made, makes it obvious that he does this purposefully (and has been doing so for some time). This leaves a sour taste, and the quality of discussion is reduced. I don't see a problem with people responding negatively to this, but rather the reasons why Kettenhunde responds as he does to anyone who isn't simply asking questions, or bowing to his opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Andy in particular is chasing Kettenhunde to other threads and bashing him there about stuff he said in this thread. That is not merely normal ubizoo arguing.

People are so invested in proving Kettenhunde wrong that they're willing to go to extreme lengths

deepo_HP
05-26-2010, 01:29 PM
hi irrational,

i will leave the quotes... for once i don't like these black bars nor the colours here, and then i might be able to express myself better.
i have a tendency to excessive writing in bad prosa, but since much of the discussion concentrates on personal attitudes, i might be forgiven.

speaking for my very own, i have no intention to classify posters in 'bad' or 'good' guys - sorry, if i gave the impression. i also don't keep track of all what is said (memorywise and because i wouldn't know why) - but generally i think that i get most of the essence.

i replied to your post about Boyd, because i honestly wasn't sure what it was meant to say.
what i want to add here (and in parts have already said), is my opinion that i find pilot qualities are not an argument in such a discussion. skills are not quantifiable and highly related to individuums. they are present as a factor and noone denies this or has denied them so far, but they can not be transferred.
if a skilled pilot wants to share his experience, he has to do more than telling stories. he can teach by practice and drill, but only to a limited number of students and for the time of his being. but this way his experience will fade over the generations and is restricted as a base for development.
however, he can also try to quantify every specific detail (in his realms), generalise and transfer his experience to knowledge.
Boyd has done exactly that!

i agree that simulations can have good use for practicing in the above sense. i won't dispute that you may have gained experience from this game, but how valid is this argument in a forum?
as an answer to the opening question, you would need to take quite some time to teach your experience... or at least offer it! it means to fly lots of different environments, situations, pilots, track is not enough.


if you have issues with being misquoted or not being answered, you should of course get it straight.
if you and others know that Kettenhunde's arguments hold no water, then dispute him. but you should be aware that game experience is not the equivalent knowledge, whatever it makes sense or not. individual experience to counter math can only be valid under few circumstances. the more general, wider, public and factual the discussion is, the less weight it has. it still has a great value, but in a different context.
by this i don't want to discredit anyone and it is not meant nit-picking... but this is as much as i can get to the point of my very opinion.


on another note:
regarding the 'art and science thing', i think that i caused this misunderstanding. i understood your argument the way you intended... in my reply to andyjwest i was slightly annoyed about the 'ridiculous' and also didn't know which 'thing' he meant, so i related to his quote literally.
anyways, my fault... i shouldn't play with words before i am not sure that i chose the right ones at all.

AndyJWest
05-26-2010, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Andy in particular is chasing Kettenhunde to other threads and bashing him there about stuff he said in this thread. That is not merely normal ubizoo arguing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I made a light-hearted comment in a couple of other threads, that is all. I'd have thought that compared to some of the things that get said on these forums, it was pretty tame stuff. Still, it wasn't my intention to offend anyone, and I apologise if I did.

JtD
05-26-2010, 10:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:

Andy in particular is chasing Kettenhunde to other threads and bashing him there about stuff he said in this thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, normally only Kettenhunde does that. I could give you 50 examples of how he kept bringing up stuff from me in completely unrelated topics just to **** me off, however, I cannot be bothered to do so. Also, many of the topics have been deleted by now, so I might be limited to 20 examples.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That is not merely normal ubizoo arguing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't worry, I've brought this up to the moderators, and by word or through lack of action I've been informed time and again that mobbing, stalking, campaigning, flaming, insulting is just the type of discussion this board wants to see. So it might not be normal, but still is welcome and supported.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">People are so invested in proving Kettenhunde wrong that they're willing to go to extreme lengths </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, actually he acts like a jerk and gets treated like one. If he's wrong, he's wrong, if he's right, he's right. Simple as that. And for what it's worth, discussions usually start when he's wrong and just keeps on arguing, as if having the final words means being right. I bet he still thinks that EAS only changes when thrust and drag are different. Or that x/0 = 0. Or that the speed of sound in air depends on density. Or, or, or. All sorts of silly stuff where he's produced dozens of pages and uncounted personal insults, just to cover up the silliness.

---
Why did I post this? See 2nd paragraph. Also, posting personal attacks without any contribution to the topic seems to be in the momentary spirit of the topic, see what I quoted. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

irR4tiOn4L
05-27-2010, 12:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Kettenhunde, many of these aircraft are INHERENTLY UNSTABLE - they absolutely require fly by wire! Without it you could not fly them!

Also, they are designed to fly tremendously fast with high stall speeds and much harsher stall characteristics than GA.

Compare that to a gentle, stable, slow Cessna! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Google "carefree handling" and "Eurofighter" and have a nice evening.

Or equally, google "A320" and "Normal Law Protections".
Same here.

Both planes can be effectively flown by complete dorks.

There's propably no other aircraft that is as easy to fly as a FBW-Airbus - as long as you're keeping it in the middle between sky and earth and you're not doing stupid stuff.

Flipping through a checklist, getting to know the aircraft and different modes of every sub-system is another story - but that's not related to the ease of "stick and rudder"-flying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Coffin corner maybe? Overspeed? Landing?

Seriously, nothing is as simply as a Piper Cub or Cessna. Landing a 747 might be harder than going straight and level in an F22, but performing combat maneouvers in an F22 is MUCH harder still.

Also, my post, if youd quoted it fully, said most of what you just did already

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by julian265:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
Andy and Irrational are two of the people I had in mind when I posted this: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The topic of any thread longer than a few pages evolves, and that's normal and unnavoidable.

What you stated certainly occurs, however I don't think you can point the finger at one 'side' of the debate here. The number of times Kettenhunde "corrects" things that weren't said, or takes a comment in a completely different context than was clear when it was made, makes it obvious that he does this purposefully (and has been doing so for some time). This leaves a sour taste, and the quality of discussion is reduced. I don't see a problem with people responding negatively to this, but rather the reasons why Kettenhunde responds as he does to anyone who isn't simply asking questions, or bowing to his opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Andy in particular is chasing Kettenhunde to other threads and bashing him there about stuff he said in this thread. That is not merely normal ubizoo arguing.

People are so invested in proving Kettenhunde wrong that they're willing to go to extreme lengths </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what 'extreme lengths' did i go to? Objecting to being misquoted? Pointing out that IL2 still gives valid data?

Now our FW 190 is turning in 8.5 seconds through 180 degrees, once again. Id really love for someone to try that in the sim. Its just a little insane

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deepo_HP:
hi irrational,
i agree that simulations can have good use for practicing in the above sense. i won't dispute that you may have gained experience from this game, but how valid is this argument in a forum?
as an answer to the opening question, you would need to take quite some time to teach your experience... or at least offer it! it means to fly lots of different environments, situations, pilots, track is not enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem, i understood it was just a misunderstanding so i quoted where id got the 'art vs science' distinction from (i was continuing Kettenhunde's earlier analogy).

I dont mean to overstate the importance of IL2, it is just a tool in the right hands, a toy in the wrong.

But when we are specifically saying 'there are reasons X that you cannot reverse in 1500m which can be shown in the sim, but are missing in your algorithms' - then the sim can be quite useful, because it shows us things like the geometry of the situation (eg, exactly how many degrees the FW must turn and what the spitfire can do) - even Kettenhunde baulked at the thought of calculating that, and used guesstimates of something over 180 (say 220 or so).

In my opinion, its simply much easier to say - look heres what happens when you try and do it in the sim, where is the sim wrong? Right, the turn rate is SLIGHTLY slower than the real thing, ok but you still need X amount to aim - and BAM done. You get a decent figure for when to try a reversal.

And as any of us who have tried it know, thats not 1500m. Its 2500m+.


So that i think is the value of a simulator. Just look at whats happened without it - 25+ pages between seasoned pilots (Kettenhunde did say he is a GA pilot, that is why i pointed out that his own expertise in this particular question is not the same as a fighter pilot's). and we get a whole lot of EM theory, some C++ turn calculations, a whole lot of maths and not a single answer

IL2 tells you right away why its a stupid idea

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
I bet he still thinks that EAS only changes when thrust and drag are different. Or that x/0 = 0. Or that the speed of sound in air depends on density. Or, or, or. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If i had to be perfectly honest, i would say that the x/0=0 result was strange, i would have thought its x/0=E (Error http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, ie, its not solvable) or closer to x/0 = infinity. But hey, shows what i know.

On the EAS etc questions, however, im not really qualified to judge, but i thought he had a point a lot of the time. Maybe i really just am not qualified to judge (didnt study aeronautical engineering).

What i CAN judge is what i have direct experience of, and 1500m reversals on trailing spitfires - lets just say i have some experience here (You have no idea how much i experimented with doing head on reversals on the Spit AI) - so when i hear something patently suicidal like a 1500m reversal, i feel i can comment

Blue_5
05-27-2010, 02:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">performing combat maneouvers in an F22 is MUCH harder still. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As has been stated several times, these aircraft are easy to fly and for basic air handling require little more than a PPL as the flight characteristics are designed (at a software level) to effectively remove pilots' workload. That is not to say that an idiot could not kill themselves, just that the philosophy of the aircraft is that the envelope is huge and you should never get close to the limits unintentionally. It’s these kind of mistakes that kill a lot of people; an F-22 is designed to prevent you accidentally making these kinds of errors.

Flying them effectively in combat, however, is exceptionally hard and requires years of training.

For a long post in which you protest various things being misunderstood and taken out of context, such a simple miscomprehension would seem a poor start.

M_Gunz
05-27-2010, 03:34 AM
Maybe the FBW is 'easier' to do the same maneuvers with provided you can do the same maneuver with both planes
regardless of scale and speed, ie barrel roll, wingover, etc. Can you stall or spin an FBW plane?

Kettenhunde
05-27-2010, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I bet he still thinks that EAS only changes when thrust and drag are different. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is because it is a fact, JtD. You took the formula for EAS and buried it in lines of code so it took me some time to see your mistake. If you were not trying so hard to cover things up I could have helped you out in just a few minutes.

The EAS comes down to TAS multiplied by the square root of the density ratio at sea level.

The density ratio is defined as the ratio of the actual density to sea level density on a standard day.

One a standard day at sea level our density ratio would be 1. However on non-standard days, that ratio will change for conditions.

Instead you applied the formula to all altitudes changing the ratio as altitude increased. Simple mistake in the mechanics of how to apply the formula and not something you would learn in an hour at the library.

By definition, it stays the same ratio as the sea level ratio otherwise it is not EAS.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Or that x/0 = 0. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow....

Once again taking things out of context and twisting it to suit an argument.

In the case of the thrust formula. It is defined as having an infinite number of answers.

It absolutely does produce infinite thrust force.

I would have to buy a new hanger every time I started the airplane! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

In an airplane, there is only one answer and we can measure it. That answer is the thrust at zero airspeed = ground friction + braking force.

The exact amount will change for conditions but thrust at idle = ground friction + braking force.

For aircraft performance purposes, since we use thrust available to determine our answer is zero thrust is available to move the airplane at zero airspeed for flying.

It is very obvious you have never worked a single take off performance problem in your life.

M_Gunz
05-27-2010, 06:52 AM
We've already been over how T=P*n/v breaks down as v approaches zero.

As far as the math... x/0 is undefined which is not even close to the same thing as x/0=0, so how about give
it up and say that you goofed?

If practical example is needed then thrust at zero speed is certainly more than zero! However you slice it,
zero was and is the wrong answer so how about it?

Kettenhunde
05-27-2010, 09:59 AM
Whatever M_Gunz.

http://www.helium.com/debates/...it-really-impossible (http://www.helium.com/debates/79173-division-by-zero-is-it-really-impossible)

I am just telling you what I was taught in college.

Please try and work the following problem at zero velocity for a propeller aircraft:

acceleration = g(Thrust - Drag - Friction) / weight

M_Gunz
05-27-2010, 01:26 PM
Our calculus class learned to deal with infinities in high school, including certain division by zero problems
as well as ratios of infinities as aleph omegas and aleph naughts so please if you really know don't snow me.
When I went back to school and had to do the math all over 12 years later it had not changed except that what
took 4 semesters in HS took 2 in college (calc I and II) with much less explanation and exposition. In short
I feel sorry for those who didn't get calculus in HS but instead the rush-job version.

x/0 with x as a finite non-zero is undefined. Zero -is- defined. x/0 does not equal zero when x&gt;0.
draw the graph if you have to, check the derivatives, the simple case works out to infinity.

Handing off to another problem does not change the first one. Forget the priest-robes, I'm not mystified.

If thrust is zero at zero velocity then you wouldn't need the brakes nor could you take off without a push.

Kettenhunde
05-27-2010, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If thrust is zero at zero velocity then you wouldn't need the brakes nor could you take off without a push. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again, it is considered zero at zero velocity because the propulsive efficiency is zero.

You know the formula, work the math. Figure out your thrust horsepower with an efficiency of zero.

It is not the same thing as thrust actually being zero and it is not infinite either.

The standard expression breaks down and there are other formulation such as the continuity equation are used to determine static thrust if you want static thrust.

Otherwise you set thrust to zero at zero velocity and do the math.

It is that simple.

It is not that important at the level you guys are working at.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">x/0 with x as a finite non-zero is undefined. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are confusing a math debate with what happens. The world is not going to collapse and the expression works as it should.

First of all, the argument goes on and on about dividing by zero in the math community.

This is the definition and position that I was taught:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Actually, zero divided by zero is not necessarily infinity. ANY number
qualifies as zero divided by zero. It is when you get to dividing NON-zero numbers by zero that you confront infinities.

Think of this in terms of the definition of division. A divided by B means: How many times must you subtract B from A to reach zero?

For A divided by zero, where A is any number except zero, the number is not even infinity, because infinity itself is not big enough. No matter how many times you subtract zero from, say, five, you will never, ever reach zero. So even infinity is not big enough to be 5/0.

What does this tell us about zero divided by zero? Well, how many times
must you subtract zero from zero in order to reach zero?

Zero times? Sure. That works.
One time? That works too.
Two times? Yes. If you subtract zero from zero twice, the result is zero.
Pi times? Again, if you subtract pi zeroes from zero, the result is
zero.

We can do this with ANY NUMBER THERE IS, even zero. So, zero divided by zero is truly a special way to define a number. The answer can be infinity, or it can be zero, or absolutely anything else. All numbers
satisfy the operation.

Richard Barrans
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of Wyoming
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/...math99/math99259.htm (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/math99/math99259.htm)

It is an infinite number of ANSWERS not an infinite amount of thrust.

You can get in a airplane, advance the throttle, and simply by applying more brake pressure, the airplane still has zero propulsive power. In fact if you work the figure of merit, a propeller engine develops maximum thrust at zero velocity.

It is just not very useful to the airplane at zero velocity.

M_Gunz
05-27-2010, 04:37 PM
At the level I'm working? I'm seeing snow at the end of May but the smell is not snow.
Maybe you're confused enough to believe what you write, maybe you don't know any better.

AndyJWest
05-27-2010, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
If thrust is zero at zero velocity then you wouldn't need the brakes nor could you take off without a push. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Once again, it is considered zero at zero velocity because the propulsive efficiency is zero. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Considered by whom? Presumably not by anyone who expects an aeroplane to be capable of accelerating from a standing start. Anyone who 'considers it zero' is just plain wrong. If the formula says it is zero, the formula is wrong. The 'standard expression' must be nothing more than an approximation - a rule of thumb - if it cannot allow for this situation.

WTE_Galway
05-27-2010, 06:53 PM
LOL ... I have not bothered reading this thread for a few days

Is this argument STILL going on ?

My very basic maths understanding from 1st year engineering was simply that division by zero was not defined. Looking at the limit case (where you had smaller and smaller divisors) the result would always approach infinity as the divisor got smaller EXCEPT obviously when the top part of the equation is zero.

Maths aside even in basic flight training I was taught that total available excess thrust in a stable stationary aircraft was zero as otherwise it would start to move.

na85
05-27-2010, 06:54 PM
I don't think you can use actuator disk theory to calculate static thrust because the inflow factor is 0, and as a result you essentially get "disk velocity equals free stream velocity"

Propellers are very complex, and any discussion of prop thrust and whatnot that doesn't include discussion of advance ratio and combined momentum/blade element theory is IMHO not worth having.

Don't most people just use prop polars and prop charts anyways?

AndyJWest
05-27-2010, 09:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I was taught that total available excess thrust in a stable stationary aircraft was zero as otherwise it would start to move. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Isn't this getting the whole thing backwards? Excess thrust in a stationary aircraft (beyond that necessary to overcome static friction) will cause it to move.

Why talk about 'stable' situations anyway? This is a mathematical convenience, rather than a description of reality, particularly if you are talking about simulating a dogfight. In this context, a pilot in a 'stable' situation should expect to meet his maker shortly...

Kettenhunde
05-27-2010, 10:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Maths aside even in basic flight training I was taught that total available excess thrust in a stable stationary aircraft was zero as otherwise it would start to move. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Bingo!

Kettenhunde
05-27-2010, 10:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't think you can use actuator disk theory to calculate static thrust </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In actuator disc theory, separate formulation is used to determine the figure of merit otherwise your thrust is zero.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In fact if you work the figure of merit, a propeller engine develops maximum thrust at zero velocity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AndyJWest
05-27-2010, 10:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't think you can use actuator disk theory to calculate static thrust </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You can but it is a separate formulation to determine the figure of merit otherwise your thrust is zero. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your 'thrust is' whatever your thrust is - a physical effect. There is no 'otherwise'. If a formula says anything different, it is wrong.

Kettenhunde
05-27-2010, 10:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If a formula says anything different, it is wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Ok Andy....

WTE_Galway
05-27-2010, 10:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
Your 'thrust is' whatever your thrust is - a physical effect. There is no 'otherwise'. If a formula says anything different, it is wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No always trust the math over your personal perceptions.

Regardless of what you "feel" about the matter in terms of the engine "must" be generating excess thrust (cos its bang and rattling and spinning and making noise etc) if the aircraft is not moving it is either welded to the flight deck OR any thrust generated is less than drag and hence excess thrust in the vector equations is zero.

AndyJWest
05-27-2010, 11:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Regardless of what you "feel" about the matter in terms of the engine "must" be generating excess thrust (cos its bang and rattling and spinning and making noise etc) if the aircraft is not moving it is either welded to the flight deck OR any thrust generated is less than drag and hence excess thrust in the vector equations is zero. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If the aeroplane isn't moving, where is the drag coming from?

This whole question is irrelevant if you consider what I wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Excess thrust in a stationary aircraft (beyond that necessary to overcome static friction) will cause it to move. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
True, or false?

If it is true, then Kettenhunde's thrust=drag (or whatever) assumptions are irrelevant. Applying steady-state simplifications to accelerating masses is just plain wrong. I think this may be the root cause of his misundersandings.

Kettenhunde
05-27-2010, 11:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">where is the drag coming from? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ground friction and braking force......as stated earlier.

AndyJWest
05-27-2010, 11:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">where is the drag coming from? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ground friction and braking force......as stated earlier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Or static friction, as I've already stated. The whole debate is meaningless, anyway, since it is an established fact that a propeller-driven aircraft can accelerate from a standing start. Steady-state formulae are wrong in an accelerating frame of reference - trying to argue otherwise is nonsensical.

Edit ---
This doesn't quite make sense (too much beer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif). It is the aeroplane that is accelerating, not the 'frame of reference'...

irR4tiOn4L
05-27-2010, 11:42 PM
Kettenhunde, based on the link you posted, if i have understood you correctly, what you are tryng to say is when x is positive - eg 1, then x/0, ie 1/0, although undefined and impossible to calculate, will approach infinity

HOWEVER, not always is x/0 = infinity. Because x can also equal 0 - ie 0/0, and that does not approach infinity - it is simply undefined, or can be zero


That seems to be what the link you posted is saying, and it does make sense - although i warn everyone that i did not study advanced mathematics and could have got any number of things wrong.


Having said that, its not correct to say x/0 approaches either infinity or zero categorically, because while x &gt; 0 then x/0 = approach infinity, but when x = 0 then x/0 = 0, undefined, or a very long maths debate.

Your own source points out that when non zero numbers are divided by zero, the answer approaches infinity. Im sure thats what you meant to show, but by saying x/0 = 0 you were probably misunderstood a fair bit

Nonetheless, i dont see anything wrong with what you were trying to say. As i said, when it comes to the physics debates about EAS etc, I do think you know what you are talking about

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
If the aeroplane isn't moving, where is the drag coming from? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This might be a phenomenally stupid question, but what about the wheels/brakes? Are they considered part of the 'drag' side? (Obviously the friction there is what is actually preventing the aircraft from moving)

M_Gunz
05-28-2010, 12:09 AM
And don't forget the stress risers.

irR4tiOn4L
05-28-2010, 12:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
And don't forget the stress risers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is that addressed to, and what do you mean?

Was this supposed to be posted in the 'flight physics quiz' as another witty take on downthrottling? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

M_Gunz
05-28-2010, 12:38 AM
don't worry, it's not you Irrational, just a general comment on the whole flow.

but yeah brakes were brought up a few times, air flow through the prop disk of a stationary plane was brought up
and ignored in PART ONE, excess thrust is not the same as thrust nor are a lot of re-definitions and stress risers
are why the Spitfires are poorer low speed turners than Focke-Wulfs.

irR4tiOn4L
05-28-2010, 12:50 AM
Ah, i see. Owing to a lack of knowledge on this topic i really cant pass comment on the 'stationary aircraft has excess thrust' argument, nor could i on the stress riser question. Im not really sure who agrees/disagrees with who really.

I do think i know what was meant by x/0=0 though

M_Gunz
05-28-2010, 02:42 AM
It should be true for all values of x withing the given limits, not just a might be for this or that.
But that is just me at 'my level' which is not rinky-**** or card-bluffing.

Bremspropeller
05-28-2010, 04:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Coffin corner maybe? Overspeed? Landing?

Seriously, nothing is as simply as a Piper Cub or Cessna. Landing a 747 might be harder than going straight and level in an F22, but performing combat maneouvers in an F22 is MUCH harder still.

Also, my post, if youd quoted it fully, said most of what you just did already </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

747s don't have FBW/ Flight Envelope Protections.

You can't fly into any of these "challanges" you mentioned with FEP.

1) Coffin corner is almost unreachable for modern airliners due to the FL410 ceiling imposed by oxygen-safety-requirements (one pilot has to have constantly donned an oxygen-mask whenever flying above FL410)
The only way of getting onto CC would be a combination of heavy GW, high altitude and high temperature - pilots usually work around that in the first place.
The a/c will give you it's optimun FL out of the FMC and you won't be tempted to go up there by economic reasons in the first place.

CC is not an issue with military designs, as, agian, they'll never reach that altitude in operational flight.

2) Overspeed is inhibited by protections (link...)

3) there is an "autoland"-feature in modern airliners (standard since about the early 80s)

.
.
.

Cessnas and Pipers will stall/ spin/ crash.
Aircraft with flight envelope protections won't do so in 99% of those cases where GA planes would.

BTW: have you actually read the links I presented?

irR4tiOn4L
05-28-2010, 07:00 AM
Hmmph, funny that.

You see, I happen to have had quite a long discussion with an airline pilot - one who flies the big jets - about the Air france disaster last year.

Needless to say, his picture of the difficulty significantly differed from yours. In his 'opinion', if you can call it that, airliners certainly fly very close to their stall speeds at the heights they do, and without accurate speed readings or the safety mechanisms they could certainly go the wrong side of that corner.

Frankly i wont read any of your links - and why should i? What you are proposing is that flying a 747 is 'easy', as is flying an F22 - both large, multi engine, fast, complicated aircraft with way too much thrust and high stall speeds and one has massive lag in spinning up its engines - and both quite a challenge to set down, even in a simulator. Which if youd ever tried, is a lot harder than in something as slow and docile as a Piper or Cessna.

And according to you, they are easier to fly than a Piper Cub or 152. A plane I happen to have flown and piloted for a bit, and one i do not consider 'challenging' or 'easy to spin in'.


Finally, you COMPLETELY miss the point - what i was saying was difficult was COMBAT PILOTING - because what im saying is that a GA pilot simply does not have the experience to judge, let alone fly, an F22 through something like a 1500m reversal on a trailing aircraft - and that makes him a pretty poor judge of whether that is or is not possible. Not to mention - a GA pilot has very likely never had the chance to try such a maneouver in something approaching a WWII figthter in the first place, and even if they did, they didnt have someone following them trying to shoot them down, or have a measure of distance to see whether it was 1500m. All of which is exactly the point - how exactly does flying a Cessna make you an expert on 1500m reversals in a Focke Wulf?

So thankyou for your input, but i simply do not care. Its not relevant, it doesnt address anything i said or meant, and frankly you are also seriously understating how difficult these aircraft are to fly, compared to your stock standard Cessna (for christs sake, have you even TRIED these in a simulator? Do you have any idea how much tougher it is to settle a 747 down than a Cessna? Wake up man!)

Kettenhunde
05-28-2010, 07:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Steady-state formulae are wrong in an accelerating frame of reference - trying to argue otherwise is nonsensical. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow....

Well it has been used for decades with good result.

It is exactly what you will do in any aircraft performance class too.

The accuracy breaks down not in the overall picture but when we start getting into the weeds for time, distance or velocity of specific points in the middle.

Even then, it is still close enough at this level.

Kettenhunde
05-28-2010, 07:29 AM
The whole pilot background which is better is a ongoing debate among real pilots.

The general condenses among those who operate airplanes is that jets are much easier to fly. Jets have fewer controls to worry about, less things that can go wrong, and modern jets have extraordinary amounts of thrust to save a pilots bacon if in trouble.

As for the general statement of piloting skills of Military Fighter Pilots, opinion is also varied.

The high attrition rates for selection to such organizations as the Blue Angels or Thunderbirds tells us that not all Fighter Pilots are created equal.

The same goes for GA and Military. The level of skill runs the gamut in both communities. You will find some GA pilots whose are much more skilled at precisely handling the aircraft than the average fighter pilot and vice versa.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I was talking to a current 747 captain recently about differences in standards of the different co-pilots he has to fly with. I was quite surprised when he said that in general the best co-pilots were those who had come through the GA ranks, and that they were almost always far better at general handling of the aircraft than ex-military fast-jet pilots. His theory was that modern fast jets are so easy to fly because of their massive power reserves, low momentum, and a draggy airframe giving good speed stability, and so ex fast jet pilots had very little experience that was relevant to airlines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I was quite surprised when he said that in general the best co-pilots were those who had come through the GA ranks, and that they were almost always far better at general handling of the aircraft than ex-military fast-jet pilots.

Absolutely 100% correct, generally.
I've trained both, in the sim and on line...GA wins hand down, nearly every time.
Types, B707 and L1011.
Can't really say about new(er) types, haven't flown 'em.

NB. Had to include the L1011, just so 'others' don't feel especially left out.:}http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I recall a bad situation with a TWA L-1011 F/E, ex USAF fighter pilot.
He barely completed the training, ran out of funds. The FAA failed him on his ATPL ride.
Was so bad that the FAA inspector suspended his instrument rating...!
Although a F/E, TWA required him to hold a IR... which was suspended.
TWA grounded him, without pay.
He could no longer afford to re-train for the ATPL and Lear rating.
So he went to a GA school, and took 3 weeks to get an instrument rating...
That was the end of his "ATPL Learjet Type Rating" on the GI Bill. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> So you ask me, military or GA...?
Last 20 years, I only deal with experienced pilots coming from other jet types.
The 747 is an easy airplane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-345677.html

M_Gunz
05-28-2010, 08:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Do you have any idea how much tougher it is to settle a 747 down than a Cessna? Wake up man!) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

747 is not a FBW jet and therefore not the 'easier' kind of plane to fly, how does that make it an example?

arjisme
05-28-2010, 08:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Kettenhunde, based on the link you posted, if i have understood you correctly, what you are tryng to say is when x is positive - eg 1, then x/0, ie 1/0, although undefined and impossible to calculate, will approach infinity

HOWEVER, not always is x/0 = infinity. Because x can also equal 0 - ie 0/0, and that does not approach infinity - it is simply undefined, or can be zero
[...]
Having said that, its not correct to say x/0 approaches either infinity or zero categorically, because while x &gt; 0 then x/0 = approach infinity, but when x = 0 then x/0 = 0, undefined, or a very long maths debate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Interesting to consider how you approach infinity. If you start with a positive divisor and gradually reduce it to very close to 0, you will approach infinity. However, if you start with a negative divisor and gradually move it toward 0, you will approach negative infinity. Since the limits are not equal either way you approach it, it is best to say x/0 is undefined.

M_Gunz
05-28-2010, 08:46 AM
that were my point, zero -is- defined

arjisme
05-28-2010, 08:51 AM
^^?? Elaborate please.

Kettenhunde
05-28-2010, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">me at 'my level' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some folks seem to have taken the expression "at this level" as a personal insult or an attempt to belittle.

No, it is simply an observation that there are not teams of engineers working with very high dollar analytical software.

It refers to that level of time and resources; not some conspiracy theory personal commentary.

Kettenhunde
05-28-2010, 08:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">that were my point, zero -is- defined </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


This is not correct.

In that same formula, the zero is undefined mathematically. HOWEVER we are not intellectually stuck on one aspect of the process but rather need to see the whole picture.

The limitations are "defined" when we use other formulation to determine the figure of merit.

The limitations are "defined" when we apply a zero propulsive efficiency and our net thrust at zero velocity is zero.

Bremspropeller
05-28-2010, 09:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You see, I happen to have had quite a long discussion with an airline pilot - one who flies the big jets - about the Air france disaster last year.

Needless to say, his picture of the difficulty significantly differed from yours. In his 'opinion', if you can call it that, airliners certainly fly very close to their stall speeds at the heights they do, and without accurate speed readings or the safety mechanisms they could certainly go the wrong side of that corner. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? What kinda plane is he flying?
Does he have ANY experience with FEP-aircraft?

A 50 KIAS-wide "corner", yes.
That is at higher alts with larger GWs and higher temps.
Usually, it's more close to 100KIAS.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Frankly i wont read any of your links - and why should i? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because you're

a) missing the point in the first place
b) claiming to have "knowledge" you don't have


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> What you are proposing is that flying a 747 is 'easy', as is flying an F22 - both large, multi engine, fast, complicated aircraft with way too much thrust and high stall speeds and one has massive lag in spinning up its engines - and both quite a challenge to set down, even in a simulator. Which if youd ever tried, is a lot harder than in something as slow and docile as a Piper or Cessna. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) an F-22 isn't "large"
2) we're talking about the simple flying, not about ILS-landings in CAT II conditions
3) you can never have "too much thrust"
4) the F-22 doesn't care - it'sFCS deals with stalls and other non-nice stuff
5) the range of stallspeeds is rather large
6) a 747 does have a stallspeed of about 90 KIAS when empty
7) a 747 has more inertia, making it easier to land during croswind
8) the 747 doesn't have FBW and FEP - I'll repeat that over and over, till you finally recognize it

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And according to you, they are easier to fly than a Piper Cub or 152. A plane I happen to have flown and piloted for a bit, and one i do not consider 'challenging' or 'easy to spin in'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what?
Flying a modern FEP-aircraft is even less challenging as there's much less to think about.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Finally, you COMPLETELY miss the point - what i was saying was difficult was COMBAT PILOTING </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you're missing the point:
We're talking about the ease of pure flying, not the physiological issues of dogfighting.
FLYING those jets is relatively easy during dogfights - staying ahead of the plane, however, isn't.
Those are two different pairs of shoes, that you want to sell as one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> So thankyou for your input, but i simply do not care. Its not relevant, it doesnt address anything i said or meant, and frankly you are also seriously understating how difficult these aircraft are to fly, compared to your stock standard Cessna (for christs sake, have you even TRIED these in a simulator? Do you have any idea how much tougher it is to settle a 747 down than a Cessna? Wake up man!) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) Thanks for wasting anybody's time then.
2) No, I'm not - you're mixing "flying" and "procedures". Big diference.

Maybe you should have a look at it anyway:
http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm

But then again - maybe you're more of a visual-kinda guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKBABNL-DDM

Bremspropeller
05-28-2010, 10:05 AM
BTW: The other link (Hudson Ditching NTSB-Report) shows you a case where a pilot just pulled his stick to the aft stop and let the plane do the rest for the last 150ft down to splash-down.

Quite nice in a situation where the sh1t is about to hit the fan.
Try that in your fancy C152 and give me a report of the outcoming.

M_Gunz
05-28-2010, 10:11 AM
Ahhh Brems, I can have too much thrust when I'm trying to land as one example. Never say never!

arjisme
05-28-2010, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Ahhh Brems, I can have too much thrust when I'm trying to land as one example. Never say never! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I would interpret his "you can never have too much thrust" to mean you can never have too much thrust available to use. Seems the only reasonable way to read that really.

Bremspropeller
05-28-2010, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ahhh Brems, I can have too much thrust when I'm trying to land as one example. Never say never! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not the context I'm talking about http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The interesting part of those a/c having "too much thrust" (especially an airliner during go-aroud, applying TOGA-thrust (Take-Off/ Go-Around), creating a massive pitch-up moment by the increased thrust outside the a/c's cog)
is that the FBW-Airbus will trim (autotrim) away those pitch-moments.

There's no autotrim-feature on GA-aircraft, making this much harder to handle - especially when having to deal with abnormal situations (the dreaded engine-failure during a limiting-crosswing go-around).
You'll better know your flap-retracting scedule over here, unless you wanna end up dead.

In a FEP-aircraft, you can spend more thinking on your SID/ STAR and checklists than on your flap-retraction or engine-limits.

FBW (with FEP) and FADEC will do that for you.

M_Gunz
05-28-2010, 11:14 AM
Jus bein a smartar$e......

Kettenhunde
05-28-2010, 11:23 AM
Brems,


It is impossible to convince people who have no experience or base to judge but are rigid in their beliefs and unable to connect the pieces.

It is no different than Columbus staking his life and fortune on his knowing the world was round.

Plenty of his peers at the time were absolutely convinced the world was flat.

Kettenhunde
05-28-2010, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would interpret his "you can never have too much thrust" to mean you can never have too much thrust available to use. Seems the only reasonable way to read that really. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It is the only way to reasonably interpret it. Otherwise the airplane is always at full throttle and the pilot unable to adjust the amount of thrust to what is needed.

Kind of a dumb thing to assume.

arjisme
05-28-2010, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Kind of a dumb thing to assume. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Let's be fair here. He chimed a few posts later and admitted he was just yanking chains.

Kettenhunde
05-28-2010, 12:20 PM
Yes he did and he deserves some degree of credit for that on some level.

That does not mean people will pick up on it.

This is Ubizoo.

If you don't spell everything out with specific language, you end up with 0x/0 = 0 conversations.....

Bremspropeller
05-28-2010, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is impossible to convince people who have no experience or base to judge but are rigid in their beliefs and unable to connect the pieces. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don Qixote vs BS-mills, I know, but I won't give up - yet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

na85
05-28-2010, 02:01 PM
Plugging his ears, scrunching his eyes and singing the star spangled banner at the top of his lungs won't make the facts go away, but it will allow him to avoid confronting them. Don't waste your time. He said it himself, he's purposely ignoring evidence that counters his feelings.

His username is "irrational" after all.


Oh say can you SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE........

JtD
05-28-2010, 02:10 PM
So you guys all agree that air combat in a modern day fighter jet is easier for the pilot than a cross country flight in a Cessna?

na85
05-28-2010, 02:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
So you guys all agree that air combat in a modern day fighter jet is easier for the pilot than a cross country flight in a Cessna? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nobody's saying that, although that's the strawman that irrational has built to argue with.

arjisme
05-28-2010, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
So you guys all agree that air combat in a modern day fighter jet is easier for the pilot than a cross country flight in a Cessna? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't think anyone asserted that here. Did you think they had?

JtD
05-28-2010, 03:12 PM
I don't get what the argument is about. So I'm asking.

One guy is saying he considers air combat more challenging than cruising a Cessna.

This gets dragged on for 5 pages, and now he's getting bashed for things others interpreted he meant. That's silly. You guys should learn to focus on how to understand other people postings, not on how to misinterpret them. Would make things a lot easier for everyone involved.

Here's the bottom line of the original statement:

"However, either way the skill sets between the two are clearly very different. If a generalisation can be made, it is that fighter pilots generally make good GA pilots, but GA pilots do not necessarily make good fighter pilots."

You think the skill sets are different? Yes? No?

You think that a generalization can be made? Yes? No?

If so, you think that a guy used to his Cessna will look better in a fighter than a guy used to a fighter will look in Cessna? Yes? No?

That's the original point. Now where are we at? Somewhere in remotely related region where folks are picking postings apart sentence for sentence adding stupid remarks. Or just adding insult. Silly, imho.

Bremspropeller
05-28-2010, 03:23 PM
The point was not whether GA-pilots make better fighter-pilots, people with GA-background will do better in initial flight-training than those without.

This was the initial quote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> They specifically mention that prior flight training/qualifications are NOT an advantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And it IS wrong:
People are screened for flying-careers well before initial flight-training.
Those that haven't been washed out till then WILL have advantages over those that haven't had any flying-experience.
Depending on your personal adaptivity, you may or may not keep that edge.

All the people that I know that had a GA-background did very well in initial SEP and pre-graduate jet-training (ENJJPT that is).

arjisme
05-28-2010, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
That's the original point. Now where are we at? Somewhere in remotely related region where folks are picking postings apart sentence for sentence adding stupid remarks. Or just adding insult. Silly, imho. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually this whole GA pilot skills vs Combat pilot skills discussion is remote from the original point of the thread. As far as I can tell, the discussion moved to this topic during an ad hominem riposte somewhere along the way. Basically, someone called someone else's credentials into question, asserting he only has GA experience and, therefore, his comments are of dubious value.

I couldn't agree with you more on this point:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
You guys should learn to focus on how to understand other people postings, not on how to misinterpret them. Would make things a lot easier for everyone involved.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kettenhunde
05-28-2010, 06:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Basically, someone called someone else's credentials into question, asserting he only has GA experience and, therefore, his comments are of dubious value. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Don't forget that experience in IL2 was more credible than actual flying experience.

irR4tiOn4L
05-28-2010, 07:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ar****e:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Kettenhunde, based on the link you posted, if i have understood you correctly, what you are tryng to say is when x is positive - eg 1, then x/0, ie 1/0, although undefined and impossible to calculate, will approach infinity

HOWEVER, not always is x/0 = infinity. Because x can also equal 0 - ie 0/0, and that does not approach infinity - it is simply undefined, or can be zero
[...]
Having said that, its not correct to say x/0 approaches either infinity or zero categorically, because while x &gt; 0 then x/0 = approach infinity, but when x = 0 then x/0 = 0, undefined, or a very long maths debate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Interesting to consider how you approach infinity. If you start with a positive divisor and gradually reduce it to very close to 0, you will approach infinity. However, if you start with a negative divisor and gradually move it toward 0, you will approach negative infinity. Since the limits are not equal either way you approach it, it is best to say x/0 is undefined. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but only because x can equal more, less or exactly 0.

Based on Kettenhunde's link, we could make these statements

If x &gt; 0, x/0 = tending to positive infinity
If x = 0, x/0 = undefined, lots of maths debate
If x &lt; 0, x/0 = tending to negative infinity

M_Gunz
05-28-2010, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would interpret his "you can never have too much thrust" to mean you can never have too much thrust available to use. Seems the only reasonable way to read that really. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It is the only way to reasonably interpret it. Otherwise the airplane is always at full throttle and the pilot unable to adjust the amount of thrust to what is needed.

Kind of a dumb thing to assume. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right. I could have said he must be at Vmax and then proceeded to deconstruct his whole post instead.
But that wouldn't be adding to the definition, would it?
So good of you to point that out btw.

irR4tiOn4L
05-28-2010, 07:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Do you have any idea how much tougher it is to settle a 747 down than a Cessna? Wake up man!) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

747 is not a FBW jet and therefore not the 'easier' kind of plane to fly, how does that make it an example? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Substitute it for any big iron FBW jet, the result remains the same.

I mentioned already that between a big jet like a 747 and an F22, in GA it may well be the F22 that is easier to fly.

However, that does not mean GA pilots can evaluate combat maneouvers! Theres nothing difficult to understand about this - if you are not trained to perform these maneouvers, and never even get to try them, you cannot be well placed to judge them

Many of you, including Kettenhunde, clearly interpreted his 'easier to fly than most GA aircraft' as meaning big iron jets like the 747. In that case i would agree that an F22 can be easier to fly

HOWEVER, bremspropeller, in saying that Cessnas/Pipers are prone to spins that supposedly FBW aircraft are immune to, is saying that an F22 is easier to fly than even a Piper Cub or Cessna!

Thats ridiculous. I dont care how prone to spinning they are, these aircraft are much, much easier to handle and land than any jet!

irR4tiOn4L
05-28-2010, 07:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Brems,


It is impossible to convince people who have no experience or base to judge but are rigid in their beliefs and unable to connect the pieces.

It is no different than Columbus staking his life and fortune on his knowing the world was round.

Plenty of his peers at the time were absolutely convinced the world was flat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok well thats funny!

You know why? Because Columbus was saying the world was significantly smaller than the scientists on the panel he was presenting his proposed voyage to.

Not only were those scientists right, they never thought the world was 'flat'. As a matter of fact, that story was invented by textbook writers a few hundred years later, to make your idiot savant who discovered America appear a litle smarter

Well done, what an analogy!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
BTW: The other link (Hudson Ditching NTSB-Report) shows you a case where a pilot just pulled his stick to the aft stop and let the plane do the rest for the last 150ft down to splash-down.

Quite nice in a situation where the sh1t is about to hit the fan.
Try that in your fancy C152 and give me a report of the outcoming. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol youre joking right?

You would compare something as rare as a successful ditch in a big jet, the Hudson incident no less, for which the pilot was hailed a hero, to ditching a Cessna?

You truly have no idea, do you? Have you tried to land any of these aircraft, simulated or otherwise?


And finally, I AM NOT MISSING MY OWN POINT. My point was that Kettenhunde is NOT equipped from his GA knowledge to evaluate combat maneouvers, and you have shown NOTHING that contests that statement

M_Gunz
05-28-2010, 07:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ar****e:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Kettenhunde, based on the link you posted, if i have understood you correctly, what you are tryng to say is when x is positive - eg 1, then x/0, ie 1/0, although undefined and impossible to calculate, will approach infinity

HOWEVER, not always is x/0 = infinity. Because x can also equal 0 - ie 0/0, and that does not approach infinity - it is simply undefined, or can be zero
[...]
Having said that, its not correct to say x/0 approaches either infinity or zero categorically, because while x &gt; 0 then x/0 = approach infinity, but when x = 0 then x/0 = 0, undefined, or a very long maths debate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Interesting to consider how you approach infinity. If you start with a positive divisor and gradually reduce it to very close to 0, you will approach infinity. However, if you start with a negative divisor and gradually move it toward 0, you will approach negative infinity. Since the limits are not equal either way you approach it, it is best to say x/0 is undefined. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but only because x can equal more, less or exactly 0.

Based on Kettenhunde's link, we could make these statements

If x &gt; 0, x/0 = tending to positive infinity
If x = 0, x/0 = undefined, lots of maths debate
If x &lt; 0, x/0 = tending to negative infinity </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And in the post where it first appeared it was applied to a stationary plane with engine running to show that the
formula T=P/v does not hold at extremely low speed especially v=0. Hangars would be destroyed, etc. With the
x/0=0.

Then Brems pointed out that it should be T=P*n/v.
Then (not Brems) the rhetoric becomes that n (efficiency) must be zero.
That's why sitting with the engine running you have to hold the brakes to stay still, thrust is zero. sheesh http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
So then it must be zero and an infinity of other answers, all undefined and now zero is also undefined.
All to avoid saying whoops, doh! As simple as that. Could you define the word "is"?

irR4tiOn4L
05-28-2010, 07:28 PM
Look, im just trying to summarise what Kettenhunde's link was saying about division by zero and tendencies to zero/infinity. I dont know how it should be used in a thrust formula

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Really? What kinda plane is he flying?
Does he have ANY experience with FEP-aircraft?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well i can point you in his direction if youd like. He frequents a forum called overclockers.com.au.

Nonetheless, i have to wonder why the hell you keep banging on about FBW. Do you realise that the difficulty comes from the size, sluggish response and large spool of big iron jets? Whether learjet/747 there is a significant lag in throttle changes that makes landings tough. Plus the stall and landing speeds are high and its much easier to do something wrong like hit the ground too hard and break the gear, or clip the wings on landing.

In a tiny, light aircraft like a Piper Cub or Cessna, you have none of those problems - why do you think everyone learns on a Cessna, then progresses to multi engine, then jets, then the big iron? Cause the last are easy to fly?

M_Gunz
05-28-2010, 07:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Do you have any idea how much tougher it is to settle a 747 down than a Cessna? Wake up man!) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

747 is not a FBW jet and therefore not the 'easier' kind of plane to fly, how does that make it an example? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Substitute it for any big iron FBW jet, the result remains the same.

I mentioned already that between a big jet like a 747 and an F22, in GA it may well be the F22 that is easier to fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Example given was an Airbus that can fly and land itself. That's a big jet with FBW.
Also explained was the difference between flying and procedures. You can screw up procedures in any plane.

irR4tiOn4L
05-28-2010, 07:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Do you have any idea how much tougher it is to settle a 747 down than a Cessna? Wake up man!) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

747 is not a FBW jet and therefore not the 'easier' kind of plane to fly, how does that make it an example? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Substitute it for any big iron FBW jet, the result remains the same.

I mentioned already that between a big jet like a 747 and an F22, in GA it may well be the F22 that is easier to fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Example given was an Airbus that can fly and land itself. That's a big jet with FBW.
Also explained was the difference between flying and procedures. You can screw up procedures in any plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know about the autoland. But why should i care? For one its mainly for emergencies, and airline pilots land without it. Also:

A) Autoland is unrelated to the difficulty you experience trying to land manually
B) If it were widely used (which it isnt really) it just supports my point that a GA pilot is not equipped to comment on combat maneouvers


All of this goes back to the very reason we are talking about 'ease' of flying GA vs combat aircraft. In what way does experience with Cessnas, Pipers, or even Airbus/Boeing airliners, make you qualified to judge combat maneouvers?


I know people here love to quibble, but really - when you get down to it, what argument have you presented to show GA pilots are well positioned to talk about combat maneouvers?

So far, only Kettenhunde has tried to answer that question


Some of the rest of you have made the most ludicrous assertion i have heard in quite a while - that big iron and fighter jets are easier to fly than a Cessna (all because they are fly by wire) - a plane every pilot first learns to fly

M_Gunz
05-28-2010, 07:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Look, im just trying to summarise what Kettenhunde's link was saying about division by zero and tendencies to zero/infinity. I dont know how it should be used in a thrust formula </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It shouldn't. Just the same way that "stress risers" shouldn't be used to try and say that a Spitfire can't do
low speed turns better than a FW.
First comes the idea and then comes the increasingly obscure, non-applicable forms of defense. Anything but oops.

M_Gunz
05-28-2010, 07:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
All of this goes back to the very reason we are talking about 'ease' of flying GA vs combat aircraft. In what way does experience with Cessnas, Pipers, or even Airbus/Boeing airliners, make you qualified to judge combat maneouvers? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Get inside any of those planes, look at the placard prohibiting aerobatics, realize the difference and lack of need
for supporting arguments. Then trace the original statements and see that to get to comparing GA to fighters in
combat maneuvers the argument itself had to be maneuvered into something that 'could be won' as well.

Compare fly the combat maneuvers in a WWII fighter as opposed to an F-16 and which is easier? At least that way it's
not an apples to buttered toast comparison.

arjisme
05-28-2010, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ar****e:
Interesting to consider how you approach infinity. If you start with a positive divisor and gradually reduce it to very close to 0, you will approach infinity. However, if you start with a negative divisor and gradually move it toward 0, you will approach negative infinity. Since the limits are not equal either way you approach it, it is best to say x/0 is undefined. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but only because x can equal more, less or exactly 0.

Based on Kettenhunde's link, we could make these statements

If x &gt; 0, x/0 = tending to positive infinity
If x = 0, x/0 = undefined, lots of maths debate
If x &lt; 0, x/0 = tending to negative infinity </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What link are you referring to? The helium.com link? That was interesting, but I didn't credit it much as it looked like a collection of answers on if it is possible to divide by zero with votes as to who was right. Amusing, but context is needed to hazard an answer.

In my postings on this, I have been speaking only of pure math -- not some real world application with certain assumptions understood. So, given that, your reply doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't matter what the sign of X is. What matters is how you reduce the divisor as you approach 0. There's a good explanation of this in Wikipedia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_by_0#In_calculus. As you approach 0 from the positive direction you will tend toward one answer; as you approach from the negative direction, you will tend toward another answer. Since you aren't converging on the same answer, it should be considered undefined (it is not continuous).

irR4tiOn4L
05-28-2010, 07:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Look, im just trying to summarise what Kettenhunde's link was saying about division by zero and tendencies to zero/infinity. I dont know how it should be used in a thrust formula </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It shouldn't. Just the same way that "stress risers" shouldn't be used to try and say that a Spitfire can't do
low speed turns better than a FW.
First comes the idea and then comes the increasingly obscure, non-applicable forms of defense. Anything but oops. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough.

Would 'but these aircraft have an autoland' count as 'obscure, non-applicable forms of defense'?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ar****e:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ar****e:
Interesting to consider how you approach infinity. If you start with a positive divisor and gradually reduce it to very close to 0, you will approach infinity. However, if you start with a negative divisor and gradually move it toward 0, you will approach negative infinity. Since the limits are not equal either way you approach it, it is best to say x/0 is undefined. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but only because x can equal more, less or exactly 0.

Based on Kettenhunde's link, we could make these statements

If x &gt; 0, x/0 = tending to positive infinity
If x = 0, x/0 = undefined, lots of maths debate
If x &lt; 0, x/0 = tending to negative infinity </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What link are you referring to? The helium.com link? That was interesting, but I didn't credit it much as it looked like a collection of answers on if it is possible to divide by zero with votes as to who was right. Amusing, but context is needed to hazard an answer.

In my postings on this, I have been speaking only of pure math -- not some real world application with certain assumptions understood. So, given that, your reply doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't matter what the sign of X is. What matters is how you reduce the divisor as you approach 0. There's a good explanation of this in Wikipedia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_by_0#In_calculus. As you approach 0 from the positive direction you will tend toward one answer; as you approach from the negative direction, you will tend toward another answer. Since you aren't converging on the same answer, it should be considered undefined (it is not continuous). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bring it up with Kettenhunde, its not my link.

However, i do see your point. I wont hazard further guesses as to how to use x/0, you seem better equipped to do that.

M_Gunz
05-28-2010, 07:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Look, im just trying to summarise what Kettenhunde's link was saying about division by zero and tendencies to zero/infinity. I dont know how it should be used in a thrust formula </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It shouldn't. Just the same way that "stress risers" shouldn't be used to try and say that a Spitfire can't do
low speed turns better than a FW.
First comes the idea and then comes the increasingly obscure, non-applicable forms of defense. Anything but oops. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough.

Would 'but these aircraft have an autoland' count as 'obscure, non-applicable forms of defense'? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What has autoland to do with x/0? That is a different subject.

arjisme
05-28-2010, 08:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Brems,

It is impossible to convince people who have no experience or base to judge but are rigid in their beliefs and unable to connect the pieces.

It is no different than Columbus staking his life and fortune on his knowing the world was round.

Plenty of his peers at the time were absolutely convinced the world was flat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok well thats funny!

You know why? Because Columbus was saying the world was significantly smaller than the scientists on the panel he was presenting his proposed voyage to.

Not only were those scientists right, they never thought the world was 'flat'. As a matter of fact, that story was invented by textbook writers a few hundred years later, to make your idiot savant who discovered America appear a litle smarter

Well done, what an analogy!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>So this is an example of the kind of unfair argumentation that I find so annoying in this thread. It is not general knowledge that the Columbus story was a fabrication. Even if many people know it there are many who don't. I didn't, for example. I find it interesting, sure. But I hadn't heard this before (and will certainly go digging to learn more). But it is genuinely unfair to ridicule someone for using this story as an analogy to make a point. How about substitute Galileo then? The idea here is to try to communicate, but you seem to be more interested in playing "gotcha!"

irR4tiOn4L
05-28-2010, 08:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Look, im just trying to summarise what Kettenhunde's link was saying about division by zero and tendencies to zero/infinity. I dont know how it should be used in a thrust formula </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It shouldn't. Just the same way that "stress risers" shouldn't be used to try and say that a Spitfire can't do
low speed turns better than a FW.
First comes the idea and then comes the increasingly obscure, non-applicable forms of defense. Anything but oops. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough.

Would 'but these aircraft have an autoland' count as 'obscure, non-applicable forms of defense'? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What has autoland to do with x/0? That is a different subject. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was a snide comment http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The point is that claiming an aircraft is easy to fly because it has an emergency autoland is also a seriously obscure defensive stall tactic when answering whether a GA pilot is able to evaluate combat maneouvers

irR4tiOn4L
05-28-2010, 08:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ar****e:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Brems,

It is impossible to convince people who have no experience or base to judge but are rigid in their beliefs and unable to connect the pieces.

It is no different than Columbus staking his life and fortune on his knowing the world was round.

Plenty of his peers at the time were absolutely convinced the world was flat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok well thats funny!

You know why? Because Columbus was saying the world was significantly smaller than the scientists on the panel he was presenting his proposed voyage to.

Not only were those scientists right, they never thought the world was 'flat'. As a matter of fact, that story was invented by textbook writers a few hundred years later, to make your idiot savant who discovered America appear a litle smarter

Well done, what an analogy!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>So this is an example of the kind of unfair argumentation that I find so annoying in this thread. It is not general knowledge that the Columbus story was a fabrication. Even if many people know it there are many who don't. I didn't, for example. I find it interesting, sure. But I hadn't heard this before (and will certainly go digging to learn more). But it is genuinely unfair to ridicule someone for using this story as an analogy to make a point. How about substitute Galileo then? The idea here is to try to communicate, but you seem to be more interested in playing "gotcha!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was ironic, nothing more.

Lets not forget Kettenhunde was ridiculing us to begin with!

It was he who likened us to the 'scientists' who thought the world was flat

IS that not unfair? What makes it ironic is that Columbus was wrong. Could perhaps some others, who claim Boeings and Airbuses are easy to fly, be wrong?


The idea is expressed in the saying 'pott calling the kettle black' - some here, who accuse others of having no knowledge and not seeing the light of truth, may well be doing that themselves.

Particularly since they make claims about aircraft and maneouvers they do not seem to have tested, either in reality or in a simulator

arjisme
05-28-2010, 08:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
It was ironic, nothing more.

Lets not forget Kettenhunde was ridiculing us to begin with!

It was he who likened us to the 'scientists' who thought the world was flat

IS that not unfair?

What makes it ironic is that Columbus was wrong. Could perhaps some others, who claim Boeings and Airbuses are easy to fly, be wrong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sure, and this is a much better way to present the point.

Keep in mind I cited what I did as an example of what has been going on. There are plenty of others I could have chosen, coming from quite a variety of folks. This was just the most recent and handy one to refer to.

irR4tiOn4L
05-28-2010, 08:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ar****e:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
It was ironic, nothing more.

Lets not forget Kettenhunde was ridiculing us to begin with!

It was he who likened us to the 'scientists' who thought the world was flat

IS that not unfair?

What makes it ironic is that Columbus was wrong. Could perhaps some others, who claim Boeings and Airbuses are easy to fly, be wrong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sure, and this is a much better way to present the point.

Keep in mind I cited what I did as an example of what has been going on. There are plenty of others I could have chosen, coming from quite a variety of folks. This was just the most recent and handy one to refer to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I admit, it is a much better way to do so, and i should not have come off as strongly before.

I come off strongly because i feel many are being disenguous, ignoring anything that would bring them back to the topic - what specific knowledge they, and GA pilots in general, have of combat maneouvers.

Given that some have taken to rambling about fly by wire and autoland making Airbuses easier to fly than Cessnas, i have to doubt they have very much of that specific knowledge to begin with. By that i mean i doubt they have ever tried to land or simulate a landing in one. Ive had the pleasure of flying a light GA aircraft (Cessna 152), and simulating both 1500m reversals in FW 190s and landings in Airbuses/Beoings.

I know Kettenhunde has GA experience, as well as experience of combat maneouvers performed by an ex fighter pilot in GA aircraft and some mock combat. That is noteworthy, and i respect that he has some specific knowledge on which to evaluate the combat maneouver that was discussed (1500m reversal), although not of some crucial aspects, of which, I argued, a simulator like IL2 can give some idea. However, i do not know what specific knowledge the other participants, claiming the ease of flying big jets, have. I am also uncertain if Kettenhunde is claiming big jets are easier to fly than Cessnas, i assumed he wasnt. Some others, however, were

Once again, this is an area where simulators come in very useful, despite their flaws. It is a simple matter to take up a Cessna in MS flight sim, then try and do the same in a big jet. Because its a simulator, you can simplify the controls to the point where you can ignore the majority of the cockpit, using just the basic flaps, throttle and control inputs with both aircraft being simulated - and just focus on which is easier to fly and land. Without specific experience with jets or even that limited experience with a simulator, on what basis are some participants claiming the ease of flying a jet? Because it has fly by wire? Shaky ground on which to be making a judgement

M_Gunz
05-28-2010, 10:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
The point is that claiming an aircraft is easy to fly because it has an emergency autoland </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brems presented a lot more than that which perhaps went right by you?

AndyJWest
05-28-2010, 10:14 PM
Did anyone see A Fw 190 and a Spitfire around here?

M_Gunz
05-28-2010, 10:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ar****e:
It is not general knowledge that the Columbus story was a fabrication. Even if many people know it there are many who don't. I didn't, for example. I find it interesting, sure. But I hadn't heard this before (and will certainly go digging to learn more). But it is genuinely unfair to ridicule someone for using this story as an analogy to make a point. How about substitute Galileo then? The idea here is to try to communicate, but you seem to be more interested in playing "gotcha!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scientists in 1490... the world was shown to be round long before then but the politics of the day was centered around
the Aristocratic view rather than facts, sort of the direction we've been headed in the US since 1980-81. You mention
Galileo, he became a victim of the same BS system.

Columbus sold his bill of goods to the Queen of Spain and to do it he had to fudge the numbers to make the trip to India
seem possible. It was only his luck that unknown to him there was land in the way or they'd never have made it. He had
the crew under pain of death refer to the native people they found as Indians because he had to say he made it to India.
The man was a serious whack job with a big ego before the trip that got immense before getting back just going by the
titles and claims he laid on himself. I'm sure that a good part of the crew would have done him if they'd had a chance.

JtD
05-28-2010, 10:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> They specifically mention that prior flight training/qualifications are NOT an advantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And it IS wrong:... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, maybe you can send your disagreement to the RAAF because it's them who said that. No need to kill the messenger. Though to be fair, they are saying it's "not necessarily an advantage".

irR4tiOn4L
05-28-2010, 10:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
The point is that claiming an aircraft is easy to fly because it has an emergency autoland </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brems presented a lot more than that which perhaps went right by you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, and so did I - which went right by him when he repeated the same things back at me.

But its just completely and utterly irrelevant. Because not only did he fail to adequately present the difficulty of flying big jets (and YES, they are difficult, particularly to land. Go try it in a sim instead of arguing with me) but its just plain not relevant.

Are we discussing the difficulty of flying Cessnas, 747's and F22s for the sake of it?
NO! Its only to illustrate that a GA pilot has very limited experience with the kind of flying that is involved in something like a 1500m reversal and head on pass.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> They specifically mention that prior flight training/qualifications are NOT an advantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And it IS wrong:... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Look that is not an absolute. Its not like all that GA experience is useless - but the point is that there is a lot they will teach you that has no equivalent in GA

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ar****e:
It is not general knowledge that the Columbus story was a fabrication. Even if many people know it there are many who don't. I didn't, for example. I find it interesting, sure. But I hadn't heard this before (and will certainly go digging to learn more). But it is genuinely unfair to ridicule someone for using this story as an analogy to make a point. How about substitute Galileo then? The idea here is to try to communicate, but you seem to be more interested in playing "gotcha!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scientists in 1490... the world was shown to be round long before then but the politics of the day was centered around
the Aristocratic view rather than facts, sort of the direction we've been headed in the US since 1980-81. You mention
Galileo, he became a victim of the same BS system.

Columbus sold his bill of goods to the Queen of Spain and to do it he had to fudge the numbers to make the trip to India
seem possible. It was only his luck that unknown to him there was land in the way or they'd never have made it. He had
the crew under pain of death refer to the native people they found as Indians because he had to say he made it to India.
The man was a serious whack job with a big ego before the trip that got immense before getting back just going by the
titles and claims he laid on himself. I'm sure that a good part of the crew would have done him if they'd had a chance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, exactly, and then the people who opposed him are presented as nutters who thought the world was flat a few hundred years later.

It should be clarified that even aristocrats did not think the world was flat at the time. Its just a modern myth
http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">: Website

It comes as some surprise, therefore, to find that Columbus was wrong and his critics were right - not because the world is actually flat after all, but because at the time everyone knew it was a globe and were arguing about how big it was. The idea that the uncouth people of the Middle Ages thought the Earth was flat is an example of the myth that has been propagated since the nineteenth century to give us a quite unfair view of this vibrant and exciting period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">: Website

The myth that Christians in the Middle Ages thought the world was flat was given a massive boost by Andrew ****son White's weighty tome The Warfare of Science with Theology. This book has become something of a running joke among historians of science and it is dutifully mentioned as a prime example of misinformation in the preface of most modern works on science and religion. The flat Earth is discussed in chapter 2 and one can almost sense White's confusion that hardly any of the sources support his hypothesis that Christians widely believed in it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">: Website

The doyen of historians of Medieval Science, Edward Grant, covers the issue in his new book, God and Reason in the Middle Ages where he finds all educated people in the Middle Ages were well aware the Earth was a sphere. Perhaps today we can at last dispense with this patronising belief about the Christian Middle Ages </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is actually a much more interesting subtext to this story which is why i said it ironic - in the 18th and 19th centuries unprecedented prosperity, as it does, led some secularists to theorise what might have been the reasons for such success of science - and they proceeded to paint a picture of science in epic battle with the church - heroes like Columbus opposing oppressive backward ways.

Course it wasnt true, science bore a great contribution from the church, and a whole lot of other negative myths about medieval people arose (infanticide, even feudalism as an all encompassing organising principle of society) http://historymedren.about.com..._the_Middle_Ages.htm (http://historymedren.about.com/od/misconceptions/Myths_and_Misconceptions_About_the_Middle_Ages.htm )

You mentioned Galileo - his is also an oft misunderstood story. Although one of the few examples of the church harming science (particularly after they burnt Giordano Bruno), Galileo's beliefs were not opposed so much on theological as scientific grounds - for a long time, and the church contributed to this, Aristotle's findings were held as inerring, and Galileo's theory, along with others, presented a fundamental challenge to the then basis of science.

People will often come to believe things about their heroes like that they were 'always right', and attempt to make the facts fit the theme. True as much about Aristotle as about Columbus or the Church

This is ironic in the context of this discussion because the fact is that all of us in the discussion have made a lot of errors and false statements, so its not just a one sided situation where some participants are surrounded by fools like me who cant recognise the light of truth.

M_Gunz
05-29-2010, 01:06 AM
The church locked Galileo up for bucking the political order.
Look what they did when the Protestant Reform got under way. The Inquisitions, wars, wiping whole families out.
That's not historic revision. It's not made up centuries later. It's fact.

Science had to advance well away from Rome and the centers of technology moved. It's the same way everywhere a
power establishment gets a strangle-hold on change because the powerful mofos want to keep things their way and
stay in power. It was the church then but it's not always the church, it's about keeping people in line.

And -- when have you done BCMs and ACMs in any Cessna 152? How were your barrel rolls? And loops? Split-S?
Did you pull heavy Gs? Chandelle? Vrille? Spent time recovering from spins? Any Russian-style combat turns?
I mean, since your experience is so in line with that of a WWII or even many WWI fighter pilots?
Want me to dig up a whole list of fighter maneuvers specifically proscribed in planes like that Cessna?

Do you have any idea of what it takes to go from being a non-aerobatics-rated pilot to flying a trainer that
still isn't enough to judge what flying a warbird is like?

irR4tiOn4L
05-29-2010, 01:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The church locked Galileo up for bucking the political order.
Look what they did when the Protestant Reform got under way. The Inquisitions, wars, wiping whole families out.
That's not historic revision. It's not made up centuries later. It's fact.

Science had to advance well away from Rome and the centers of technology moved. It's the same way everywhere a
power establishment gets a strangle-hold on change because the powerful mofos want to keep things their way and
stay in power. It was the church then but it's not always the church, it's about keeping people in line.

And -- when have you done BCMs and ACMs in any Cessna 152? How were your barrel rolls? And loops? Split-S?
Did you pull heavy Gs? Chandelle? Vrille? Spent time recovering from spins? Any Russian-style combat turns?
I mean, since your experience is so in line with that of a WWII or even many WWI fighter pilots?
Want me to dig up a whole list of fighter maneuvers specifically proscribed in planes like that Cessna?

Do you have any idea of what it takes to go from being a non-aerobatics-rated pilot to flying a trainer that
still isn't enough to judge what flying a warbird is like? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure. But the church also cradled science and established places where it could be practised at a time when the old philosophical schools had long since died out. Religion created the infrastructure and impetus for 'understanding God's work' - note that i am not religious, and argued at length with someone very well informed whose expertise i respect on the subject of the history of science, with exactly the position you took - they showed me that, in fact, historians do not regard science as having been harmed, at least not initially, by the church.

Its one of those funny things that you dont really expect - but historians generally agree that the Church helped science more than it hindered.


As for the second part of your post - wonderful, now we are getting somewhere! So, yes, i have pulled 'heavy' g's, but lets be frank - 2 or 3 g's is not 'heavy' by fighter standards, and thats all i was allowed in the 152. Of course i have pulled none of those maneouvers

But guess what - that goes to prove my point! I ask you; have you? I know Kettenhunde has, but has he done it in an aircraft like the Fw 190, with someone behind him at 1500m?

A resounding no then. And thats my point. Before you rubbish 'gamey simulators', consider what else you have to go off.

Because in many of your cases, nothing but academia. Even with pilots like Kettenhunde, there remain gaps on things that such a pilot simply never has the chance to try - like an actual FW unless they are lucky (which Kettenhunde might have) or experience of combat and gunnery - things where a simulator definitely helps to flesh out concepts and close the gaps with more than 'best guesses'.

THAT is the only reason why I can dispute the views of an experienced pilot like Kettenhunde on these topis - because ive tried it, where he might never have had a chance to. Even if it is just a 'simulator'.

At the least people ought to test these theories in the 'game' before claiming it cannot be of any predictive value. It can, and if theyd used it, it would have argued more effectively than 30 pages of this thread why they were mistaken


And please, before anyone does, I really dont want to hear about all the 'bad habits' and general reasons why reality is OBVIOUSLY superior to simulation. All im saying is that, in the absence of information on reality, why not use the simulator?

Bremspropeller
05-29-2010, 04:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Substitute it for any big iron FBW jet, the result remains the same.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I mentioned already that between a big jet like a 747 and an F22, in GA it may well be the F22 that is easier to fly.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How's that?
According to you, it has "way too much thrust" - maybe due to it having FEP - unline the 747, huh?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">HOWEVER, bremspropeller, in saying that Cessnas/Pipers are prone to spins that supposedly FBW aircraft are immune to, is saying that an F22 is easier to fly than even a Piper Cub or Cessna!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly - the F-22 can be max-performed at any time during any maneuver, while the pilot never has to think of the plane's aerodynamical limits.
Great advantage over the Cessna.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thats ridiculous. I dont care how prone to spinning they are, these aircraft are much, much easier to handle and land than any jet!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What actually is ridiculous is your inability to

1) understand what others say
2) process that information and extrapolate it on own experience
3) stubbornness to read links other people show you to prove you otherwise

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> You would compare something as rare as a successful ditch in a big jet, the Hudson incident no less, for which the pilot was hailed a hero, to ditching a Cessna?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) Yes, because one can clearly see that FEP help in situations where pilots are prone to failure

2) the pilot was able to max-perform the jet while having enough processing-power left in his brain to aim for a clear spot on the river - imagine doing the same in stick shaker" than won't give you any information where in the "rattle band" you are - just above ALPHArattle or just below ALPHAstall; so you'd either back off and release stick-pressure, crashing the aircraft (they already ditched at 4 times the certified sinkrate and 20 KIAS above recommended splash-down speed due to not handleing the flaps according to checklist - so much for acting under tension);
or you'd pull back harder, making the aircraft roll on it's back - not the best thing to happen at 150ft AGL

3) the pilot was only hailed as "hero" by dorks who clap after landing - pilots actually know that not only the first officer had at least deserved 50% the praise, but that any other crew could have done this just as well
BTW: for a "hero" he came awfully close to fecking up, see above

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> And finally, I AM NOT MISSING MY OWN POINT. My point was that Kettenhunde is NOT equipped from his GA knowledge to evaluate combat maneouvers, and you have shown NOTHING that contests that statement
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, then you're missing the point everyone else clerly understands, ridiculously arguing against others and facts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Nonetheless, i have to wonder why the hell you keep banging on about FBW. Do you realise that the difficulty comes from the size, sluggish response and large spool of big iron jets? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, that's why on FBW-Airbi, stick-input commands roll-rate and G in Normal and Alternate Law - there is no sluggishnes.
On top of that, FADEC spools the engines from idle to TOGA in about six seconds.
If YOU can't plan ahead for six seconds, you're propably having the wrong freetime-activity.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Whether learjet/747 there is a significant lag in throttle changes that makes landings tough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really?
Why?
On stabilized approaches, power-settings are constant.
They only change for configuration-changes, such as gear-down or flap-setting changes.
Autothrust is a nice feature to just let the plane handle it on it's own, especially when flying at "managed" speed, where the aircraft won't only make up for additional drag, but will also aim fo the next lower Vf-speed, going down to VLS.

I could go further to GSmini and some sort of windshear-protection, but you won't read it anyway...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Plus the stall and landing speeds are high and its much easier to do something wrong like hit the ground too hard and break the gear, or clip the wings on landing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not if you're in stabilized approach.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In a tiny, light aircraft like a Piper Cub or Cessna, you have none of those problems - why do you think everyone learns on a Cessna, then progresses to multi engine, then jets, then the big iron? Cause the last are easy to fly? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really?
Strange, I'm currenly reading "The Killing Zone" and it's full of examples of GA-pilots doing just that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

No, because the latter require signifigantly less systems-insight.

A pilot being trained on a FBW A320 would propably kill himself after a few hours in GA, because of all the protections that aren't there.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I know about the autoland. But why should i care? For one its mainly for emergencies, and airline pilots land without it. Also:
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, it's for ar$sely-bad weather when some airlines will restrict pilots and take automation instead.
I wonder if you'd rather like to fly a raw-data CAT IIIB approach in a Cessna or in modern airliner with Flight-Directors?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A) Autoland is unrelated to the difficulty you experience trying to land manually
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Halfway true - there's a lot of automation avaliable in modern airiners and each of it makes the pilot's life easier.
Autoland is only one of it.

Autothrust-landings come in conveniently as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> B) If it were widely used (which it isnt really) it just supports my point that a GA pilot is not equipped to comment on combat maneouvers
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are widely used and each plane requires a proof of it's funcionality every 90 days.

Fun fact:
When Boeing asked British Airways in the late 1970s why they'd want to have autoland in their new 757s, as those conditions almost never existed, BA answered that at their homebase, LHR CAT III-conditions are a frequent happening and that part of their fleet (Trident and VC-!0) did have autoland-capabilities since the mid-sixties.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> All of this goes back to the very reason we are talking about 'ease' of flying GA vs combat aircraft. In what way does experience with Cessnas, Pipers, or even Airbus/Boeing airliners, make you qualified to judge combat maneouvers?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's where you originally missed the point:
Nobody ever claimed that:

We were talking about how flight-students with GA-background do better in initial and advanced flight-training.

Specific excess-power is not a concept unknown (well, at least it SHOULD be known...) to GA-pilots.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Some of the rest of you have made the most ludicrous assertion i have heard in quite a while - that big iron and fighter jets are easier to fly than a Cessna (all because they are fly by wire) - a plane every pilot first learns to fly
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe, next time you're at an airshow, you should ask the duty-F-22 pilot why his plane is easier to handle than your Cessna.

He'll propably tell you the same I did.

Kettenhunde
05-29-2010, 05:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Lets not forget Kettenhunde was ridiculing us to begin with! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Kettenhunde
05-29-2010, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Want me to dig up a whole list of fighter maneuvers specifically proscribed in planes like that Cessna? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

GA pilots do the same maneuvers.

Many of those maneuvers are specifically required and can be found in the Visualized Flight Maneuver manuals.

M_Gunz
05-29-2010, 07:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
But the church also cradled science and established places where it could be practised at a time when the old philosophical schools had long since died out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you call it science. I don't, not at all. Not even a little bit. And astrology is not astronomy either.

Kettenhunde
05-29-2010, 08:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">He'll propably tell you the same I did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That he probably will!

Wish my airplane had the piloting aids an F-22 raptor does...

JtD
05-29-2010, 11:00 AM
I guess the first time I see a Cessna perform a 90+° AoA cobra maneuver or a supersonic low level flgith, I'll agree that the F-22 pilot has the far easier job.

Up to then I'll just consider the two jobs too different to compare.

Bremspropeller
05-29-2010, 12:02 PM
And where exactly lies the difficulty for the pilot with those two features?

irR4tiOn4L
05-29-2010, 06:12 PM
Brems, so let me get this straight.

You are saying that you have the necessary experience and expertise to judge how best a fighter or WWII warbird should be maneouvered, and what it can do in various situations against an enemy, because you fly GA aircraft.

Further, you think that as a Cessna GA pilot, you are the pinnacle of challenging aviation, and it is thus your prerogative to comment down on anyone else in the aviation world (including the Royal Australian Air Force).

You also seek to presume what an actual airline or combat pilot will say; that it is easy, despite the fact they had to undertake extremely extensive training to get there.

Further, you are not afraid to tell the RAAF they are wrong in their entry requirements, and you truly are the model fighter pilot - if you should so wish, for few things will take you away from the pinnacle of aviation, your Cessna (why else would you stay with it?)

EXACTLY what KIND of experience do you have Brems? Are you even a pilot?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Maybe, next time you're at an airshow, you should ask the duty-F-22 pilot why his plane is easier to handle than your Cessna.

He'll propably tell you the same I did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can ask my resident airline pilot, hell likely say you are a fool.

But sure, i can ask - after you give me any reason whatsoever, in terms of relevant piloting experience on your part, why i should think im not bothering a busy guy with a stupid question. Thats pretty reasonable

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
And where exactly lies the difficulty for the pilot with those two features? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are not features, they are maneouvers, and therein lies their difficulty.

But then im sure you already knew that, and were just being disingenuous.

irR4tiOn4L
05-29-2010, 06:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
But the church also cradled science and established places where it could be practised at a time when the old philosophical schools had long since died out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you call it science. I don't, not at all. Not even a little bit. And astrology is not astronomy either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, i didnt say Aristotle or those philosophic schools were right, i said they were a place from which to do what was then science - like it or not the history of science is neither secular nor always progressive. A lot of bad ideas misled the field or were stepping stones onto better ones, depending what view you take.

If you really care that deeply, take it up with science historians, and show them why science is really a secular pursuit. Im relaying their views, which is that its not a story of science vs religion

irR4tiOn4L
05-29-2010, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Lets not forget Kettenhunde was ridiculing us to begin with! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well comparing us to people who thought the world was flat can lead to misunderstandings. Nonetheless, i accept that was not the intention.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Want me to dig up a whole list of fighter maneuvers specifically proscribed in planes like that Cessna? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

GA pilots do the same maneuvers.

Many of those maneuvers are specifically required and can be found in the Visualized Flight Maneuver manuals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kettenhunde, be that as it may, GA pilots are not fighter pilots (and a Cessna is not an F22). Im sure you appreciated that when Phil took you through some of those maneouvers

I accept you have a better idea than most on what these maneouvers involve. But when it comes to things like what an enemy pilot would do or how long you need to line up your guns, we have to revert to some form of simulation because none of us can say with certainty based on GA experience

M_Gunz
05-29-2010, 07:03 PM
The bad ideas were not stepping stones to right practices. They were used to keep right practices down for centuries.
The right practices came about through the work of engineers even as they had before the dark ages.

irR4tiOn4L
05-29-2010, 07:15 PM
I thought id highlight these gems.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
A pilot being trained on a FBW A320 would propably kill himself after a few hours in GA, because of all the protections that aren't there.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, this one in particular is laughable, because pilots start by learning to fly on light, single engine aircraft like Cessnas, then progress to multi engine, small jets, all the way up to large jets.

So to suggest airline pilots are some mythical creatures who only learn on the aircraft they will fly, or even better, to suggest they could not fly a humble Cessna - well, I had a good laugh anyway

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
2) the pilot was able to max-perform the jet while having enough processing-power left in his brain to aim for a clear spot on the river - imagine doing the same in stick shaker" than won't give you any information where in the "rattle band" you are - just above ALPHArattle or just below ALPHAstall; so you'd either back off and release stick-pressure, crashing the aircraft (they already ditched at 4 times the certified sinkrate and 20 KIAS above recommended splash-down speed due to not handleing the flaps according to checklist - so much for acting under tension);
or you'd pull back harder, making the aircraft roll on it's back - not the best thing to happen at 150ft AGL
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol well i think the little detail you are missing is how rare a successful ditch in a big iron jet is, and how much easier successfuly ditching is in a Cessna.

That you think these are equivalent really shows the limited experience you are drawing on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Really?
Strange, I'm currenly reading "The Killing Zone" and it's full of examples of GA-pilots doing just that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope thats not where you are getting all of this

That book is all about the mistakes inexperienced GA pilots make (under 350 hours). The vast majority relate to what you call 'systems insight', not ease of flying.

Certainly, Cessnas dont have the ground crew or warning lights of big jets - if you let ice get into your fuel then noone will check that for you, your engine will stop mid flight and youll be in trouble.

But we are talking about ease of flying in working aircraft, not maintenance.

irR4tiOn4L
05-29-2010, 07:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The bad ideas were not stepping stones to right practices. They were used to keep right practices down for centuries.
The right practices came about through the work of engineers even as they had before the dark ages. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, not my problem. Id even be inclined to agree (and i argued as much with the person i mentioned).

Not all were bad ideas btw - just some were, and the two were confused.

Aristotle's ideas is really a good example. His theories dominated science for a millenium. Some were good, many were not.

Is it his fault? Not really. Just the fault of those who came after and exalted his ideas

Keep in mind that when you havent seen what weve seen, telling right from wrong can be very difficult. It takes time and mistakes to build up science. Bad theories need to give way to less bad theories

M_Gunz
05-30-2010, 02:01 AM
Aristotle's ideas came from Aristotle's method which precluded any actual science. He did not test, only stated.
If the Dumb-F tested then most of his BS would never have become 'law'.
It was the power of aristocracy to say "I think" and have 'lesser people' say "therefore it is" under duress.
He didn't make a few bad calls, he made large numbers of them. Ever heard of spontaneous generation?
His method shut progress in understanding the physical world down despite the many obvious errors it contained.

Science comes by a method. Aristotle's method is anti-science and his results were as cracked as astrology.
Aristotle's system was a package deal. If you didn't accept one part then you couldn't accept the whole, and
that threatened the power base that was built on it. So the new methods happened away from the power center
and once it became safe to actually investigate the world things proceeded where you could. A whole number of
advances completed elsewhere than within easy reach of Rome actually began within easy reach of Rome but woe
to the person there who would pursue say, to experiment with a vacuum or investigate what air is made of just
because Aristotle decreed that nature abhors a vacuum and decreed there can be no such thing. Elements? Yes,
there are four! Earth, Air, Fire and Water. End of investigation because rich-boy said so. Alchemy, not
chemistry, astrology not astronomy, because-BS instead of physics, Aristotle the talker-not-doer. Great stuff
for keeping people in place, ie down, though.

Kettenhunde
05-30-2010, 04:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">pilots start by learning to fly </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Irrational,

I think you have an erroneous definition of what makes a good trainer. I thought the same thing until I learned to fly. "Trainers are easy airplanes to fly and forgiving by nature."

Sure, if you don't want to learn a thing about flying.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> a hard aircraft to fly, i.e., one with lots of adverse yaw and little penetration, that's being worked off a tiny airport will teach a student a lot, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When examined in modern terms, the Cub is actually a poor airplane. It's slow, has adverse yaw out the ears, its stall breaks predictably when forced into it, and the pilot/student can't see over the nose on landing.

All of its shortcomings as an airplane, are its strong points as a trainer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> One of the Champ's advantages over the Cub is that its heavier weight gives it more wind capability so it can fly more often. Also, the airplane has enough adverse yaw for two (or three) airplanes, so the student either learns to use his feet or gets used to looking at the world sideways. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On the negative side of the ledger, the above points make the Cherokee very nearly a point-and-land airplane. It lands too easily, so, although it's a good airplane, it's too easy to fly for a trainer. It also has little adverse yaw, so it is harder to teach coordinated flight in. A good instructor can turn out a student that's as good as any of the other pilots, but he has to work at it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.airbum.com/articles...ePerfectTrainer.html (http://www.airbum.com/articles/ArticlePerfectTrainer.html)

The T-6 Texan for example is harder to fly by design than the fighters it was preparing pilots to transitions too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Connie Edwards, long time sparkplug of the warbird movement and quinessential Texan is credited with saying, "Start out in a Bearcat, transition to the P-51 and then you're ready for the T-6." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> My reaction to the Six was probably typical and definitively indicative of what the old school marm represents...the epitome of the higher-performance trainer. It wasn't supposed to be easy to fly. It was not, repeat not, supposed to take a student out and give him a good time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> What the AT-6 (SNJ to you Navy types) represented, and still represents, was the finest combination of challenges ever built into a military trainer. The student had to fly the airplane, reading its every nuance. His proficiency benefited from this mental and physical exertion. He got better whether he wanted to or not! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Don't construe these stall characteristics as being bad. Yes, the T-6 will bite you but it will do so the same way every time. It's totally predictable. You get slow and pull and the Texan lets you have it right now! Those areas where the Six tends to get fiesty are those areas where light handed flying is required. A little attention to the speed/G relationship will keep you out of trouble all together. In other words, you have to learn to fly the airplane . . . which is the true test of a trainer in the first place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> One note of caution: like any Warbird the T-6 is a high-performance machine possessed of high-performance quirks and maintenance. So don't go up with just any T-6 driver since the law of averages says there's bound to be at least a few who don't get enough time to stay truly proficient. Don't be afraid to ask around before jumping in with someone who may or may not be as good as he or she thinks they are.

In a T-6 you get the same nostalgic rush most Warbirds give, only the raw edged performance is missing. Most of that performance, however, is measured only by numbers on a dial. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepT-6.html

Bremspropeller
05-30-2010, 04:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> You are saying that you have the necessary experience and expertise to judge how best a fighter or WWII warbird should be maneouvered, and what it can do in various situations against an enemy, because you fly GA aircraft.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really?
Gimme the quote where I'm saying just that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Further, you think that as a Cessna GA pilot, you are the pinnacle of challenging aviation, and it is thus your prerogative to comment down on anyone else in the aviation world (including the Royal Australian Air Force).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I'm not.
I'm just telling the truth.
If you find that hard to swallow, well - your problem, not mine.

I've given you a fair share of links that prove my point.
What have you brought up so far? Your "747 = FBW with FEP"-friend.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You also seek to presume what an actual airline or combat pilot will say; that it is easy, despite the fact they had to undertake extremely extensive training to get there.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've had my fair chatter and jumpseat-time to have somewhat more insight than you have.

Oh, did I mention the people with GA-background that went to ENJJPT?
They told me just about that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Further, you are not afraid to tell the RAAF they are wrong in their entry requirements, and you truly are the model fighter pilot - if you should so wish, for few things will take you away from the pinnacle of aviation, your Cessna (why else would you stay with it?)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it's not my fault the - RAAF's got it wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

They're telling that GA-background is NOT REQUIRED.
That's because the training-programme is to turn pedestrians into fighter-pilots.
Most people will take an advantage with them in case of having a GA-background.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> EXACTLY what KIND of experience do you have Brems? Are you even a pilot?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I can ask my resident airline pilot, hell likely say you are a fool.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ask him what Alpha-Floor Protection is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They are not features, they are maneouvers, and therein lies their difficulty.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Being able to perform these maneuvers is a design-feature.
Flying supersonic is a non-issue - apart from the ASI showing a speed greater than M 1.0, there's no difference from flying at subsonic speed.

The Cobra is all about disengaging the AoA and G-Limiter and inducing a high pitch-rate.

Nothing special here.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So to suggest airline pilots are some mythical creatures who only learn on the aircraft they will fly, or even better, to suggest they could not fly a humble Cessna - well, I had a good laugh anyway
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gimme the quote where I'm "suggesting" that.
Maybe you should go over to pprune and ask a 50yr captain there of how today's airmanship with all the automation has suffered over the last couple of decades.
He'll propably wite you a novel.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lol well i think the little detail you are missing is how rare a successful ditch in a big iron jet is, and how much easier successfuly ditching is in a Cessna.

That you think these are equivalent really shows the limited experience you are drawing on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I should showing your posts around at Uni - my professors would laugh their arses off on you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You still didn't get that the pilot was max-performing the aircraft with the help of Flight Envelope Protections, did you?

Successful ditchings in airliners aren't that unlikely.
Most people do have the Ethiopian 767 in mind when they think about ditchings - what they're forgetting is that the pilot was wrestling with highjackers when trying to get the aircraft away from land.
Most people died because they inflated their lifejackets inside the plane, not because of the crash per se.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That book is all about the mistakes inexperienced GA pilots make (under 350 hours). The vast majority relate to what you call 'systems insight', not ease of flying.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's an entire chapter about stalls/ spins and about fecking up landings - just what you claimed to be so excesively difficult in airliners.

Bremspropeller
05-30-2010, 05:03 AM
Crumpp, the Texan is a superb bird - we have three of them here in Aachen.
The sound totally blows you away http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
There's also a busted Yak-3 (a$$hat pilot broke it, but that's another story alltogether...).

Not quite like Kisseemee, but it's a start http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


The concept of "hard to fly" trainers is the best one can think of.
Quite different from me when I had my first-ever solo.
Train on a non-spinning twinseater and solo on a spinning singleseater http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kettenhunde
05-30-2010, 05:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Train on a non-spinning twinseater and solo on a spinning singleseater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They trying to get you killed?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

I love the Texan, it is a very rewarding airplane to fly.

irR4tiOn4L
05-30-2010, 06:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> You are saying that you have the necessary experience and expertise to judge how best a fighter or WWII warbird should be maneouvered, and what it can do in various situations against an enemy, because you fly GA aircraft.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really?
Gimme the quote where I'm saying just that.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you are not saying that?

Excellent. Thats all i needed to hear from you

My point was that as a GA pilot neither of you has the experience to describe 1500m reversals in a FW, and it seems you agree

While im sure as a GA pilot with a chip on their shoulder youd love to argue more, about how you could be in the RAAF and how jets really are easier to fly than Cessnas, i dont care. I did not discuss those to pass wind across the room, i discussed those to show that GA pilots are not fighter pilots.


Kettenhunde, a Cessna 152 is not a 'trainer' for an Airbus. Your T6 example is simply lightyears away from the difference between a Cessna and a big iron jet, and doesnt make it valid. If you had been talking about a Piper Cub vs a Cessna 152, sure. The Cessna is probably the easier aircraft. That pattern does not necessarily extend to jets.


Its nice to see you two see eye to eye. You certainly havent when Brems brought up that silly anecdote, but if you attribute that to someone else and dont admit you misquoted them it never becomes a problem.

And of course if you dont admit you missed something basic, like the number of degrees your aircraft must turn, or your shifting figures, or turn performance or the amount of space you need to fire or something silly like what someone said, then that never becomes a problem either.


The trouble is that you two come into these discussions expecting people to believe you are objective, rational and fair. That if you were wrong, you would say it. Then you dont. You end up disingeuous, and muddy the waters.

That makes you great when you are right, with lots of interesting insight - but terrible when you are wrong.



M_Gunz - a lot of people do agree that Aristotle was particularly awful, and blame him for misleading or even stagnating science for millenia. I argued the same thing you did the person i was debating that with - but can we really blame Aristotle for holding up science?

Im not so sure. He wasnt taken as gospel outside the Christian west, yet Islamic science ran into its own limitations.

I am inclined to agree, but i dont believe one man can be blamed for the stagnant thoughts of others. Not entirely

As for aristocracy holding down science - this is somewhat confusing. We are talking about a transition from the Greek to Roman to Western Christian and Islamic world. Can we really talk of 'the aristocracy' across that time?

The sad truth is that Aristotle's ideas were not necessarily accepted to 'hold people down'. The regimes broke down several times in the interim, and even entirely shifted allegiance (eg the Christian outlaws becoming official religion of the Empire). Unfortunately, its probably just more accurate to say that people, including the 'scientists' that came after, believed him, and did not question his account until it had become ingrained.

Part of the problem was that 'science' was not a clear conception in Aristotle's time - the philosophic schools moved on. Then that scholarly environment largely died out, and became fractured. A lot of mistakes are made when its the 'first time around' - many people probably simply underestimated the problem and thought that Aristotle had got the principles of the world right.

Only when another scholarly environment had been created under the protection of the church, and experiment diverged with Aristotle did science flourish again

Bremspropeller
05-30-2010, 07:21 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

You're now not getting it for three pages.

I'll repeat for the menthally-challenged among us:

- Flight Envelope Protection
- Automation
- Flight-Control Laws

But I'll understand that someone who doesn't even bother to read two provided links has a hard time of understanding all this.

irR4tiOn4L
05-30-2010, 07:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

You're now not getting it for three pages. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got it a long time ago.

You are not interested in any way on returning to topic. You believe difficulty of flying jets is the topic.

What is it that i said that upsets you so much? Did i imply that GA pilots are worse than fighter pilots?

Thats not what im about. Im simply trying to tell you both that you cant come in here and use GA experience to bolster your argument about what an effective maneouver is, while dismissing any form of simulation.

Theres some important things youll miss that way


Now you said that you accept that is true, that you arent equipped to judge maneouvers in combat purely from GA experience. Yet you seem to insist that the difficulty of flying jets is still somehow relevant - perhaps because if you can establish that, you will perhaps convince some of us that a GA pilot could readily fly F22's, and thus as the most qualified form of pilot can talk about combat piloting.

But the fact is you cant have it both ways. Even if I were to accept jets are easier to fly than Cessnas, how would that change the fact that a Cessna pilot still doesnt have the combat piloting experience to judge maneouvers? How would it change the fact that you accept you are not qualified to judge those, and if it would change that, why are you taking that position now?

You have to take a position. You cant just keep claiming i misunderstand what youve said about flying jets - its just not the issue.

Heck, for the sake of the argument lets assume youre right - lets assume Cessnas are more difficult to fly than big iron, and that F22's even in combat maneouvers are easier still (even though i still vehemently oppose this).

Now what? What have you proved?

Bremspropeller
05-30-2010, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now you said that you accept that is true, that you arent equipped to judge maneouvers in combat purely from GA experience. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what flight-performance prediction/ evaluation is for.
The maths has already been presented.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Yet you seem to insist that the difficulty of flying jets is still somehow relevant - perhaps because if you can establish that, you will perhaps convince some of us that a GA pilot could readily fly F22's, and thus as the most qualified form of pilot can talk about combat piloting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm still having a hard time understanding why you're taking that "flying a plane = dogfighting".
But even in that case, it would be true http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even if I were to accept <span class="ev_code_RED">FBW/ FEP</span> jets are easier to fly than Cessnas, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't give a feck if you accept the earth is round. Making a fool of yourself is not my task.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> how would that change the fact that a Cessna pilot still doesnt have the combat piloting experience to judge maneouvers? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even a Cesna pilot can

1) read the same information avaliable to fighter-pilots and understand it
2) the maths has already been presented - it's no rocket-science either
3) a Cessna-pilot should know about specific excess-power and the use of it


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> How would it change the fact that you accept you are not qualified to judge those, and if it would change that, why are you taking that position now? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said I wasn't qualified.
I said whether a GA-pilot can read and understand the physics is not my part of the story.
It's up to his personal involvement.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> You have to take a position. You cant just keep claiming i misunderstand what youve said about flying jets - its just not the issue.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) I already have.
2) I'm not the one ignoring factual backgrounds.
3) It is an issue - you've just been unable to support your argumentation, trying to back off in another direction. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Heck, for the sake of the argument lets assume youre right - lets assume Cessnas are more difficult to fly than big iron, and that F22's even in combat maneouvers are easier still (even though i still vehemently oppose this).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) FBW/ FEP big iron, which is what you ae constantly ignoring...

2) Try a couple of combat maneuvers in your Cessna - you'd be busy not to overstress or stall your aircraft. An F-22 pilot hasn't got to think about that.
It's not all too complicated to understand, is it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now what? What have you proved?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you're constantly claiming to be "impossible".

arjisme
05-30-2010, 12:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
My point was that as a GA pilot neither of you has the experience to describe 1500m reversals in a FW
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>I believe the thesis you have been trying to argue for the past number of pages is that, coupled with the above, experience with a simulator DOES give you the experience to describe 1500m reversals in a FW. Correct?

Basically, this positions the argument such that, of the three of you, only you have the requisite experience to make a judgement here. Correct?

Finally, is the debate over what can be done in a FW in a simulator? Or is it over what can be done in real life?

Kettenhunde
05-30-2010, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Your T6 example </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You do know I fly a T-6?

M_Gunz
05-30-2010, 04:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Part of the problem was that 'science' was not a clear conception in Aristotle's time - the philosophic schools moved on. Then that scholarly environment largely died out, and became fractured. A lot of mistakes are made when its the 'first time around' - many people probably simply underestimated the problem and thought that Aristotle had got the principles of the world right.

Only when another scholarly environment had been created under the protection of the church, and experiment diverged with Aristotle did science flourish again </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was no science in Aristotle's time. If the word was used then the meaning was completely different.

Aristotle never got the principles of the world right. Go ahead and show where he did.

The old church punished anyone who varied from doctrine. Advances as in CHANGE aka Any New Ideas were forbidden.
Ideas were still sneaked in when couched in old terms. Galileo got above the radar and the world lost the last
decades of what he would have done.

Scholarly environment? Business management is the correct term. You need that to maintain a power base.

irR4tiOn4L
05-30-2010, 06:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ar****e:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
My point was that as a GA pilot neither of you has the experience to describe 1500m reversals in a FW
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>I believe the thesis you have been trying to argue for the past number of pages is that, coupled with the above, experience with a simulator DOES give you the experience to describe 1500m reversals in a FW. Correct?

Basically, this positions the argument such that, of the three of you, only you have the requisite experience to make a judgement here. Correct?

Finally, is the debate over what can be done in a FW in a simulator? Or is it over what can be done in real life? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct, HOWEVER, i am NOT saying i am the only 'authority'. Im not even saying i AM an authority.

I am responding to off-hand dismissal of the sim as a source of information on this problem.

Im not asking anyone to take my word for it - im asking them to boot up the sim, see how it plays out and THEN think about why the pilot needs another 1000m to aim his plane.

Instead of just dismissing it offhand, saying the turn performance maths (lacking any geometry) is enough, and that everyone else is an idiot compared to almighty GA Cessna pilots (talk about ego)

What i hope to achieve with that is a bit more respect for the sim and for factors other than flight performance from some residents - that might make it a lot easier in future to debate these kinds of things, if we have recognition that the sim can give insight

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Your T6 example </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You do know I fly a T-6? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes i do, i obviously saw you two discussing it. First off, obviously its not a jet trainer so it goes to show nothing about jet vs cessna difficulty. But then i never gave two bob for that argument.

The T-6 certainly puts you very close to WWII craft. And ive accepted before Kettenhunde that your experience with Phil, in mock combat, and i even gave you the possibility of having flown WWII warbirds close to the FW, that all puts you as the eminent authority.

No question there - i said that before.

However, i pointed out that you are missing the bit where someone is behind you, and how you would fire back

And it would help if you didnt just dismiss the sim offhand, and tried it in there to see just how insane doing that at 1500m is

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Part of the problem was that 'science' was not a clear conception in Aristotle's time - the philosophic schools moved on. Then that scholarly environment largely died out, and became fractured. A lot of mistakes are made when its the 'first time around' - many people probably simply underestimated the problem and thought that Aristotle had got the principles of the world right.

Only when another scholarly environment had been created under the protection of the church, and experiment diverged with Aristotle did science flourish again </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was no science in Aristotle's time. If the word was used then the meaning was completely different.

Aristotle never got the principles of the world right. Go ahead and show where he did.

The old church punished anyone who varied from doctrine. Advances as in CHANGE aka Any New Ideas were forbidden.
Ideas were still sneaked in when couched in old terms. Galileo got above the radar and the world lost the last
decades of what he would have done.

Scholarly environment? Business management is the correct term. You need that to maintain a power base. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didnt say Aristotle ever got the 'principles' right - but he did make other contributions. In any case, I didnt oppose your view on him.

Where i think you might re-evaluate is in your charge of an overriding aristocratic theme or power base that kept science down - a lot of historians regard the church as very important to the development of science

M_Gunz
05-31-2010, 01:05 AM
The church kept reading, writing and simple math going. Business, not science.
A lot of historians believe a lot of different things. It comes with having to write papers that are not like
the papers written before.

julian265
05-31-2010, 04:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
A lot of historians believe a lot of different things. It comes with having to write papers that are not like
the papers written before. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Heh, that's an interesting point.

Wurkeri
05-31-2010, 05:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ar****e:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
My point was that as a GA pilot neither of you has the experience to describe 1500m reversals in a FW
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>I believe the thesis you have been trying to argue for the past number of pages is that, coupled with the above, experience with a simulator DOES give you the experience to describe 1500m reversals in a FW. Correct?

Basically, this positions the argument such that, of the three of you, only you have the requisite experience to make a judgement here. Correct?

Finally, is the debate over what can be done in a FW in a simulator? Or is it over what can be done in real life? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have not read even 1% of the messages written here but in the case of simulator you can log on to Hyperlobby and test the ideas. Don't be suprised if you get some beating http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kettenhunde
05-31-2010, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have not read even 1% </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

irR4tiOn4L
05-31-2010, 07:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The church kept reading, writing and simple math going. Business, not science.
A lot of historians believe a lot of different things. It comes with having to write papers that are not like
the papers written before. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is an interesting point.

M_Gunz, itd make for an interesting debate. Youre going to need someone more informed though who doesnt necessarily agree with you. Myself, i think youre leaving out a fair bit of science in between but i understand your point - for a long time it was largely individuals, not institutions, that pursued it.

Perhaps the contribution is merely that the institution sheltered the individual. Not much, but something

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have not read even 1% </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ill say, what a way to jump in mid conversation.

Dont remember anyone discussing whose best on hyperlobby. Were just trying to find some common ground on how to use information from sims

Kettenhunde
05-31-2010, 07:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Instead of just dismissing it offhand, saying the turn performance maths (lacking any geometry) is enough, and that everyone else is an idiot compared to almighty GA Cessna pilots (talk about ego </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's not change my position, Irrational, please.

You keep arguing about things never said or claimed.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...471079368#1471079368 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3631050558?r=1471079368#1471079368)

Here is what I recommended you should do:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One possibility would be to extend a little farther and then climb at the slower airplanes Vmax.

Once a couple of hundred feet above, zoom to best rate of turn velocity and reverse.

I would make all of my turns at best performance speeds if possible. When not turning, keep your speed up as high as possible and convert the excess speed to altitude in a zoom to your turn speeds before making the turn.

I would use energy neutral maneuvers such as a displacement roll to neutralize a rate advantage and never let your speed drop below best load factor velocity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is why I recommended that:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> No it is because I can pick up a calculator and quickly determine using a process called "Total Energy Concepts for Aircraft Performance" that zooming and immediate reversal is basically a null proposition for the Spitfire.

At 330 mph the FW-190 is at an Eh = 6954 ft with a Ps of ~25.4ft/s.

The Spitfire at 330 mph is at a Eh = 6954ft with a Ps = 0. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is what I said about IL2:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I don't play IL2 nor do I know what works in it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

irR4tiOn4L
05-31-2010, 07:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Let's not change my position into something more palatable to you, Irrational, please.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...471079368#1471079368 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3631050558?r=1471079368#1471079368) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, there is no common ground at the moment. Thats whats at issue though

Apart from the quote you replied to specifying 'effective', the lack of geometry and enemy movements in your answer, changing performance figures and not enough space to fire, the other distinguishing element of your argument is that fact that you purport to draw a clear distinction between reality and the sim, and proscribe actions for only one.

Implicitly that means the other cannot be considered near or equivalent, and must be considered inaccurate as a sim. You have questioned, implicitly then explicitly the value of the sim, i have questioned your ability to do so.

Once we reach a position on the sim we can reach a position on how far the pilot might need to aim and come to a solution to the problem. Hence how we use information from the sim is fairly crucial

Thats what we are talking about

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">:Kettenhunde
quote:
As far as flight physics are concerned, that's nearly the same thing.



It's not even close, bud.

Go tell the FAA or EASA you have a bazillion hours playing IL2 and that now qualifies you to fly a real airplane because it is the same thing.

Right?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kettenhunde
05-31-2010, 08:01 AM
I edited that Irrational as it sounded harsher than I intended. I am not trying to alienate you or provoke.

You need to listen to what others say if you want them to participate with you.

It is fine to object or not agree with something. I enjoy an informed debate.

I don't consider myself qualified to remark on your game. You have morphed my feelings into a position I have never taken.

When the discussion is morphed by one side into something that never occurred....well you just can't have much of a conversation with that.

I am qualified to do the math. The math is math and does not leave much room for speculation.

irR4tiOn4L
05-31-2010, 08:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I edited that Irrational as it sounded harsher than I intended. I am not trying to alienate you or provoke.

You need to listen to what others say if you want them to participate with you.

It is fine to object or not agree with something. I enjoy an informed debate.

When the discussion is morphed by one side into something that never occurred....well you just can't have much of a conversation with that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kettenhunde i saw your edits, and i am not provoked or angered. I am giving you a completely honest account of what im arguing.

The reason im trying to do so is because i do believe it is the best way forward to recognise that we can combine sim, theoretical and practical experience.

It is is something i genuinely wanted to point out before the debate was derailed about whether GA vs Fighter pilots and ease of flying. Im trying to point out how the sim can help

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I am qualified to do the math. The math is math and does not leave much room for speculation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your maths is not complete. You have not fully defined the situation and not taken account of extra space needed for aiming.

This has been pointed out many times before, but has been ignored because it came from sim experience, not real world experience of getting or shooting at something.

That doesnt make it invalid

Kettenhunde
05-31-2010, 08:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thats what we are talking about </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You are beating me up for verifiable facts.

You can have millions of hours playing IL2.

No one is going to let you fly a real plane on that experience though.

That's because it is NOT the same.

Kettenhunde
05-31-2010, 08:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Im trying to point out how the sim can help </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me explain.

Your game brings other like minded people together and increases everyone's knowledge. It sparks interest in aviation and history. Pilots are a shrinking community almost the world over. Hopefully some of you will be inspired to go get in the real thing and fly. Realizing that goal takes money, you will either enter the service of your country or you will work hard in school to get in a financial position you can afford it.

Hopefully some might see what we are trying to do with our Museum and lend a hand.

You are absolutely right these sims can help.

irR4tiOn4L
05-31-2010, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thats what we are talking about </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You are beating me up for verifiable facts.

You can have millions of hours playing IL2.

No one is going to let you fly a real plane on that experience though.

That's because it is NOT the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The intention is not beating you up, and I agree they are not the same thing. Just as being a fighter pilot and cessna pilot are not the same thing (a direct corrolary here)

This is about a simple flaw in the way you described the original scenario, and what your mathematics missed. Simple to observe but difficult to express mathematically, the role of the pilot and the space they need.

Little bearing on aircraft performance, large bearing on just how 'curious' that form of dogfight can become - for example, the zoom climb advantage you spoke of can be nulified if the following pilot is nevertheless within effective firing range. The reversal is ineffective if the following pilot is able to avoid a deflection shot and fire effectively before the reversing pilot has had a chance to aim. The state of the pilot and stability of the aircraft after a hard turn can affect the time to aim.

This stuff matters

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Im trying to point out how the sim can help </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me explain.

Your game brings other like minded people together and increases everyone's knowledge. It sparks interest in aviation and history. Pilots are a shrinking community almost the world over. Hopefully some of you will be inspired to go get in the real thing and fly. Realizing that goal takes money, you will either enter the service of your country or you will work hard in school to get in a financial position you can afford it.

Hopefully some might see what we are trying to do with our Museum and lend a hand.

You are absolutely right these sims can help. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keeping in mind im out of university and pursuing a private pilot qualification (and a lot of others here are already GA or military pilots - not that you suggested otherwise, just alerting attention to this), I do see your good intentions and support your very positive contributions to these forums - when you are right. Ive stated my support for the project before, i plan to buy some of those nice plans you have.

But without being harsh, when a detail or two are unfortunately missed in your proscriptions it becomes difficult to show you this

irR4tiOn4L
05-31-2010, 08:45 AM
Whoever is correct, it can affect the entire way the sim portrays the situation, or the way we predict what happened in reality. Zoom climbs can become less effective, reversals also. So if in reality those reversals could be done at 1500m, or gunnery were significantly different than the sim, then id also want to know - as it can affect the entire portrayal in the sim and how close to reality it is.

For you there is perhaps little significance to the outcome, as it doesnt mean you need to reevaluate your views.

For IL2 gamers if 1500m reversals should have been possible it means the whole value of the sim as a realistic portrayal has to be reevaluated.

If you are right, id like to know, and know why and where the sim is wrong. If you are not, id like to know that also, but also where you are right.

This perhaps leads to some misunderstand of why some of us are willing to pursue a topic you didnt even purport to talk about, and explicitly excluded - what happens in the sim. Thats not your fault, apologies are due there.

However as in the GE effects thread, it does well to realise that IL2 gamers are pursuing an angle of what happens in reality vs the sim - they have a stake in where the simulation is not giving them accurate information, and what parts of it they should ignore that perhaps is not immediately apparent, and leads to frustration on both sides

When they say theres no way to do an effective 1500m reversal, they are taking a holistic approach in terms of outcome in the sim that can seem to ask a question of aircraft performance for those who dont play the sim. When the answer is provided in terms of turn performance saying its possible, it can lead to frustration from il2 flyers who are looking for a holistic answer. The idea is ultimately the improvement of the sim

Hopefully this makes sense

Wurkeri
05-31-2010, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Ill say, what a way to jump in mid conversation.

Dont remember anyone discussing whose best on hyperlobby. Were just trying to find some common ground on how to use information from sims </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't recall anyone discussing whose best on Hyperlobby either but about "Getting away from a spit... other than running away".

You see, if you have a good idea for that, it should work on Hyperlobby as well, right?

And I did not reply to you but ar****e regarding the simulator. You are generating far too much text to read through or comment.

irR4tiOn4L
05-31-2010, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wurkeri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Ill say, what a way to jump in mid conversation.

Dont remember anyone discussing whose best on hyperlobby. Were just trying to find some common ground on how to use information from sims </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't recall anyone discussing whose best on Hyperlobby either but about "Getting away from a spit... other than running away".

You see, if you have a good idea for that, it should work on Hyperlobby as well, right?

And I did not reply to you but ar****e regarding the simulator. You are generating far too much text to read through or comment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well its just that we are discussing a very specific scenario, so without reading the thread it would be hard to see what we meant. Granted, this thread is long

But sure, yeah by all means test it in the sim. I think the general consensus from IL2 gamers is 2500m for an effective 180-&gt;headon - and we are specifically talking about a FW 190 reversing into a trailing spitfire.

What has your experience been? Frankly ive not felt even 4km seperation was wasted, as it put you more on par with the trailing aircraft

arjisme
05-31-2010, 10:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wurkeri:
And I did not reply to you but ar****e regarding the simulator. You are generating far too much text to read through or comment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Honestly, I read your reply but did not understand what your point was. If it was simply to point out that we can fly the sim against real opponents and test the scenario, then OK. I don't think that was under debate and I'm pretty sure all involved already recognized that.

There is some debate here as to how accurate the sim is to real life however. I think it is accurate enough to demonstrate that trying a reversal at 1500m is a bad idea, as a general rule. However, there are enough differences between the sim and reality that I don't think we can prove it is impossible for a real life pilot to reverse and execute an effective head-on against a trailing Spit. That being said, it would take tremendous balls for the FW pilot to do so and I would say in real life it is actually even less likely it could be pulled off. One significant thing missing from the sim is the absolute fear of dying.

M_Gunz
05-31-2010, 10:41 AM
At the speed given the FW pilot could loop up and reverse far quicker than trying a flat turn and be higher than
when he started as well. I wouldn't guess where the Spitfire might go in the same time though but I'm sure there
would be more separation than he would get making a flat turn.

Kettenhunde
05-31-2010, 11:00 AM
There is lots of things that we could speculate could be done.

The fact remains that at the velocities we are discussing, the Focke Wulf simply has more potential to maneuver.

Wurkeri
05-31-2010, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
What has your experience been? Frankly ive not felt even 4km seperation was wasted, as it put you more on par with the trailing aircraft </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fly only Finnish Air Force planes online + La-5 and never Fw 190 nor Spit. However, the Bf 109G-2 and the La-5 are pretty similar planes; the G-2 has about 50% better climb rate and the speeds are about equal, the La-5 being faster at low level. In the case of large separation the G-2 will be hunreds of meters above when the La-5 has completed the turn and still out of gun range if the G-2 choose to climb.

Of course you can assume that the La-5 (or Fw) wants head on but why should the G-2 (or Spit) accept it? Much easier is to just keep climbing in shallow turn to keep eye on enemy and enough separation until there is enough altitude difference to dive on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ar****e:
Honestly, I read your reply but did not understand what your point was. If it was simply to point out that we can fly the sim against real opponents and test the scenario, then OK. I don't think that was under debate and I'm pretty sure all involved already recognized that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got an impression that you asked "is the debate over what can be done in a FW in a simulator?" and I just suggested that you can test the presented ideas, what ever these are, on Hyperlobby. Sorry if I understood you wrong.

Kettenhunde
05-31-2010, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Of course you can assume that the La-5 (or Fw) wants head on but why should the G-2 (or Spit) accept it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


By the same token, why should the airplane with the more potential to maneuver allow the other airplane time to increase its potential. That would be a mistake.

You are correct, the aircraft with the higher Eh or more Ps does not have to reverse for a head on.

Gaston444
05-31-2010, 04:24 PM
I noticed this energy maneuverability diagram:

http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_024a_12.gif

The 6 G "Corner Speed" of the P-51D is here described as being at around 187 knots, with a diameter of about 550 ft....

Isn't this obviously calculation-based garbage? Are abstract calculations really preferrable to reality?

How many times do I have to post the 1989 test done, with REAL aircrafts, by the "Society of Experimental Test Pilots", at full METO power and limited to 6 Gs?

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com.../topic,261798.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,261798.0.html)

ALL four aircrafts tested: F6F, FG-1, P-47D, P-51D, exhibited the same 6 G "Corner Speed" characteristics, quote (confirming this is no peculiar fluke, though many WWII fighters likely do not conform):
"Corner speeds of all were very close to the maximum level flight speed,
implying very rapid energy loss when turning at the structural limit."

-"Structural Limit" could not have been implied here to be much higher than the 6 Gs they did: 7-8 Gs at most, and the "Corner Speed" they tested WAS at 6 Gs... AND found to be "VERY close to the maximum level speed"...

So if the "Corner Speed" is the MINIMUM speed at which 6 Gs can be REACHED (even if only for a micro-second), what is this garbage about getting 6 Gs at around 187 knots? I could easily believe 5.5 Gs mind you, but NOT 6 Gs...

Does 187 knots sound like the "VERY close to the maximum level speed" of a P-51D to you?

Isn't an actual test done by "The Society of Experimental Test Pilots", with modern 1989 test instruments by PROFESSIONAL test pilots, flying REAL aircrafts, more authoritative that mere numbers scribled on paper?

Apparently not, since I am the only one pointing out this obvious contradiction...

Or show me an actual flight test where the P-51D can actually reach 6 Gs at such a low 187 knots speed...

I wonder how long it is going to take to realize that those "doghouse" theoretical charts apply to jets aircrafts and NOT to heavy powerful WWII prop fighters... With the REAL WWII thing, the "doghouse" probably would looks a bit strange, and some maybe even have a caved-in roof...

Gaston

AndyJWest
05-31-2010, 04:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">calculation-based garbage </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

TS_Sancho
05-31-2010, 04:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
I could easily believe 5.5 Gs mind you, but NOT 6 Gs...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why?

Kettenhunde
05-31-2010, 05:16 PM
Gaston,

Those aircraft were not at their wartime weights and conditions.

The lighter we make an aircraft, the lower its corner speed.

Kettenhunde
05-31-2010, 05:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">wonder how long it is going to take to realize that those "doghouse" theoretical charts apply to jets aircrafts and NOT to heavy powerful WWII prop fighters... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Jets and propeller aircraft do require different formulation. They also have different characteristics because their characteristics of power and thrust.

However the maneuver envelope for either can be calculated quite accurately in terms of performance trends. I don't see anything of any real concern in the plots posted.

R_Target
05-31-2010, 08:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Crumpp, the Texan is a superb bird - we have three of them here in Aachen.
The sound totally blows you away http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Most summers, I'll catch the Canadian Harvard team. Those things are hella loud.

Kettenhunde
05-31-2010, 08:49 PM
You gotta love a round engine....

That is how God meant man to fly!

R_Target
05-31-2010, 09:18 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif They're kind of bratty-sounding. Like a giant weed-eater. Goodyear FG-1 "Marine's Dream" sounded quieter during taxi and T/O than one of the Harvards.

TS_Sancho
05-31-2010, 09:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Crumpp, the Texan is a superb bird - we have three of them here in Aachen.
The sound totally blows you away http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Most summers, I'll catch the Canadian Harvard team. Those things are hella loud. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I spent part on my childhood under the final approach to the Van Nuys airport in southern Ca.

They had a gaggle of them who called the place home.

I have very fond memories of hearing those big radials churning in the distance and running outside to watch them fly over.

Come to think of it, those T-6's are probably the reason I'm posting on this board now some forty years later.

M_Gunz
05-31-2010, 10:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">wonder how long it is going to take to realize that those "doghouse" theoretical charts apply to jets aircrafts and NOT to heavy powerful WWII prop fighters... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Jets and propeller aircraft do require different formulation. They also have different characteristics because their characteristics of power and thrust.

However the maneuver envelope for either can be calculated quite accurately in terms of performance trends. I don't see anything of any real concern in the plots posted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could dig up that British blueprint chart showing Spitfire and 109 doghouse charts, the shape is right there.

Is it time for the low-speed wunder-turning FW and stress-risers yet?
That would go perfect with an F-86 vs Mig-15 (with added lines) chart.

irR4tiOn4L
05-31-2010, 10:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
There is lots of things that we could speculate could be done.

The fact remains that at the velocities we are discussing, the Focke Wulf simply has more potential to maneuver. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well hes going faster, yes - but not fast enough not to get shot down if he tries even what M_Gunz suggested.

M_Gunz i have tried what you suggested, it is worse than making a high/low yo yo. It leaves the plane really slow, hard to aim and the spit is on you in no time. Thats at 2500m, let alone 1500m.

Generally high/low yo yo is the best way to reverse, because you need to keep your speed up throughout the turn. A loop doesnt do that.

Kettenhunde, its not just about possibility to maneouver. Your maneouver must not bring you within effective gunnery of the enemy. You cannot maneouver dead.

But i do not dispute that from a purely E theory perspective, the situation might seem to favour the FW.

R_Target
05-31-2010, 10:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
I spent part on my childhood under the final approach to the Van Nuys airport in southern Ca.

They had a gaggle of them who called the place home.

I have very fond memories of hearing those big radials churning in the distance and running outside to watch them fly over.

Come to think of it, those T-6's are probably the reason I'm posting on this board now some forty years later. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds good to me. When I was a kid it was screamers out of Holloman and Thunderbirds at WSMR. No props. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif C-130 doesn't count.

M_Gunz
05-31-2010, 11:06 PM
B-52s out of Loring, shaking the whole sky.

AndyJWest
05-31-2010, 11:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You cannot maneouver dead </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope. I pointed this out early in the whole debate. Nobody chose to respond, except by adding irrelevant side-issues about the difficulty of deflection shooting, and whatever else could cloud the issue later. This thread ceased being a discussion of dogfighting a long time ago, if it ever was one in the first place.

JtD
05-31-2010, 11:16 PM
Even with the apparent E advantage the Fw has, the Spitfire will still be able to gain on it in any maneuver where a higher initial E state matters. 10% advantage won't help you if you're flying maneuvers where you're losing E 25% faster. The Fw just isn't the plane to throw around within a limited space.

So, as has been said plenty of times, it best continues straight for more separation.

Kettenhunde
06-01-2010, 03:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">you're losing E </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

It does not work that way.

If the aircraft can sustain a higher load factor level turn at that velocity, it has more excess power.

Codex1971
06-01-2010, 04:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:

Absolutely. An inappropriate tool to use in the middle of a dogfight.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

RAAF Pilot entry requirement:

" - able to perform complex cognitive tasks while carrying out precise manual activities"

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/...itionalRequirements/ (http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/airforce/jobs/Pilot/AdditionalRequirements/)

Professional pilots are not rodeo cowboys. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I actually sat that test in 93.

I had to sit in a simulator with a red dot on in the middle of a blue screen, I had to work the stick and rudder to keep that dot in the centre, all the while the assessors were yelling and whispering variables to me and I had work out speed, bearing, altitude etc while also reading out letters that were flashing on the screen.

Make no mistake, if anyone thinks they can go into combat flying without knowing how to work out trigonometric equations in their head where all the bells and whistles are going off in the cockpit the military will NOT let you anywhere near their aircraft.

M_Gunz
06-01-2010, 04:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
M_Gunz i have tried what you suggested, it is worse than making a high/low yo yo. It leaves the plane really slow, hard to aim and the spit is on you in no time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't mean a wingover by any chance?

At 330 kts you should have plenty of speed to do a half-loop if you're smooth about it.
330 kph, no, but 330 kts is over 600 kph. You shouldn't lose half of that. The hard part is not pulling into stall and
blowing speed at the start during the pull-up. The next hard part is firing on the way down while accelerating, that's
a real trick.

M_Gunz
06-01-2010, 05:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
Make no mistake, if anyone thinks they can go into combat flying without knowing how to work out trigonometric equations in their head where all the bells and whistles are going off in the cockpit the military will NOT let you anywhere near their aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not even a MAC pilot? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

No really, they don't want anyone up there that can't react fast and accurate in the case of a systems failure.
Train, train, and train again. Next day, more of the same. Now where's that circuit breaker?

M_Gunz
06-01-2010, 05:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">you're losing E </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

It does not work that way.

If the aircraft can sustain a higher load factor level turn at that velocity, it has more excess power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Question is how long each will be 'at that speed' knowing that neither one has to stay 'at that speed'.
Even if he starts with a shallow zoom, I wouldn't expect the Spitfire pilot to keep much over his maneuver speed
and in turning about the FW pilot is going to lose speed as well. Does it make sense then to continue calculating
'at that speed' for either plane?

irR4tiOn4L
06-01-2010, 07:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
M_Gunz i have tried what you suggested, it is worse than making a high/low yo yo. It leaves the plane really slow, hard to aim and the spit is on you in no time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't mean a wingover by any chance?

At 330 kts you should have plenty of speed to do a half-loop if you're smooth about it.
330 kph, no, but 330 kts is over 600 kph. You shouldn't lose half of that. The hard part is not pulling into stall and
blowing speed at the start during the pull-up. The next hard part is firing on the way down while accelerating, that's
a real trick. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, you can make it over - but as you say, the hard part is stabilising it again, aiming and firing on the way down while accelerating. A pure loop is not very effective.

By high/low yo-yo i mean a wings vertical turn with a vertical component - http://www.tpub.com/content/av...-1222/P-12220025.htm (http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation2/P-1222/P-12220025.htm)

I liked low yo-yo the best because by diving your speed rises in the first half of the turn, before dropping in the latter, giving you more aiming space, and the speed you traded for altitude helps keep you a fast target

High yo-yo or half-loop both slow you down in the first part of the turn and allow the spit to make up precious ground, and also make you an easier target - unless you can zoom so far above that he cant hit you at all, in which case you had such a large advantage you might as well have given yourself more seperation

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:

Absolutely. An inappropriate tool to use in the middle of a dogfight.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

RAAF Pilot entry requirement:

" - able to perform complex cognitive tasks while carrying out precise manual activities"

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/...itionalRequirements/ (http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/airforce/jobs/Pilot/AdditionalRequirements/)

Professional pilots are not rodeo cowboys. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I actually sat that test in 93.

I had to sit in a simulator with a red dot on in the middle of a blue screen, I had to work the stick and rudder to keep that dot in the centre, all the while the assessors were yelling and whispering variables to me and I had work out speed, bearing, altitude etc while also reading out letters that were flashing on the screen.

Make no mistake, if anyone thinks they can go into combat flying without knowing how to work out trigonometric equations in their head where all the bells and whistles are going off in the cockpit the military will NOT let you anywhere near their aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, good to know for anyone considering taking the test. Although having to sign up for 11 years is pretty daunting.

AndyJWest
06-01-2010, 07:46 AM
A question for Kettenhunde:

What would you do if you were the Spitfire pilot? You are chasing a Fw 190, and on his six, but he is faster than you, and getting away. At 1500m he enters a tight horizontal turn with the objective of engaging you head on at close quarters. What is your best course of action?

JtD
06-01-2010, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">you're losing E </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

It does not work that way.

If the aircraft can sustain a higher load factor level turn at that velocity, it has more excess power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can't process more than three words at once? That's poor even by ubi standards.

Hint: If you want to argue with me, you can describe a maneuver of the Fw in the scenario you're so strongly advertising and I'll counter with a maneuver of the Spit in which the Spit gains E in relation to the Fw - without offering the Fw a decent firing solution. I can't, you win. My bet is you can't, probably won't even try. So I win. Clownhat is yours.

Kettenhunde
06-01-2010, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Question is how long each will be 'at that speed' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It takes about ~14 seconds for the Focke Wulf at Vmax in a instantaneous turn starting at 6G's to slow down to best rate of turn speed at ~3G's.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> What would you do if you were the Spitfire pilot? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I do? I would close the distance as fast as possible to try and keep the Focke Wulf turning at its best rate of turn.

The Focke Wulf at 164KEAS Eh = 1193 and its Ps = 75.63ft/s

The Spitfire at 149KEAS Eh = 984ft and its Ps = 76.18ft/s.

If you can keep him from speeding up, you will win the fight. The Spitfire wants the fight to be slow and time is its enemy.

Although neither pilot can afford to give the other time to gain Eh, time itself is more friendly to the Focke Wulf in this case as it has the higher final Eh.

irR4tiOn4L
06-01-2010, 10:50 AM
Just as an aside, how do you plan to do that as the spit if the FW is extending away at 1500m already?

Well nevermind, you cant do much so moving on, your plan against a FW that has reversed from 1500m seperation is to prevent him extending again, forcing him to maneouver.

Good plan. Exactly the reason why a slow FW after a half loop or high yo-yo from 1500m ahead, or even a low yo-yo after drastic maneouvering required for a 1500m reversal, only places itself at a disadvantage. The spit either has the advantage in the head on attack or subsequent maneouvering after such a reversal. Assuming a head on is even feasible for the FW, and it doesnt end up being a turkey shoot

R_Target
06-01-2010, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
B-52s out of Loring, shaking the whole sky. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol, speaking of loud. Them too.

TS_Sancho
06-01-2010, 12:50 PM
For M_Gunz...

Boeing B-52G Stratofortress Minimum Interval Take Off (MITO) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq6Hpxyrhyo&feature=related)

M_Gunz
06-01-2010, 02:25 PM
Got that movie! Never saw more than one in the air at once though and always so close that fine details were
visible. At some point in the 60's they moved the path a bit and I never saw one overhead again. For years I
had a huge framed picture of one on my bedroom wall.

I should be glad I never saw a whole line of them go over from that base. Pretty sure at least.

Kettenhunde
06-01-2010, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Exactly the reason why a slow FW after a half loop or high yo-yo from 1500m ahead, or even a low yo-yo after drastic maneouvering required for a 1500m reversal, only places itself at a disadvantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not necessarily. The Focke Wulf choosing to zoom and reverse is a energy nuetral maneuver which preserves its advantage.

In a neutral close quarter maneuvering, the Focke Wulf can turn at his best load factor speed, the Spitfire's is then forced to reduce speed in order to gain advantage.

Once the Spitfire is slower, that curious form of dog fighting noted by the RAF will develop.

There is no "Turkey Shoot" for either aircraft unless one decides to try and match performance of the other. The airplanes are equal dogfighters.

HellToupee
06-02-2010, 04:40 AM
No the maneuver leaves it wallowing about at slow speed when the spit catches it an easy target to shoot or evade no matter how much potential energy it has.

Turn at best load factor speed all you like aircraft don't follow on rails they can cut inside the turn and follow a shorter path.

Kettenhunde
06-02-2010, 04:54 AM
Feel free to do the math....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In a neutral close quarter maneuvering </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the key phrase. The situation originally described is as far outside of neutral as you can get.

The situation in the original discussion is very much advantaged for the Spitfire.

The Spitfire is in the most desirable tactical position a fighter aircraft in WWII could attain, the dead six o'clock of his opponent.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Turn at best load factor speed all you like aircraft don't follow on rails they can cut inside the turn and follow a shorter path. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a faster rate through the compass.

That is exactly what the Focke Wulf pilot should be looking for as it indicates the Spitfire has traded velocity for turn performance.

When the Spitfire gains in the turning circle, the FW190 should roll out of the turning circle and zoom above to safety.

Funny that is exactly what happened according to the RAF too.

HellToupee
06-02-2010, 05:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Feel free to do the math.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Math for what specifically? An entire dogfight?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Turn at best load factor speed all you like aircraft don't follow on rails they can cut inside the turn and follow a shorter path. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
It is a faster rate through the compass.

That is exactly what the Focke Wulf pilot should be looking for as it indicates the Spitfire has traded velocity for turn performance.

When the Spitfire gains in the turning circle, the FW190 should roll out of the turning circle and zoom above to safety.

Funny that is exactly what happened according to the RAF too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So your suggestion is a 190 is to turn as hard as possible, and then if spitfire turns harder zoom? Suicide.
Following aircraft can also employ yoyos or many other possible moves, you thinking always assumes the following aircraft is trying to follow the same path/maneuver as the leading aircraft.

orville07
06-02-2010, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Feel free to do the math.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Math for what specifically? An entire dogfight?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Turn at best load factor speed all you like aircraft don't follow on rails they can cut inside the turn and follow a shorter path. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
It is a faster rate through the compass.

That is exactly what the Focke Wulf pilot should be looking for as it indicates the Spitfire has traded velocity for turn performance.

When the Spitfire gains in the turning circle, the FW190 should roll out of the turning circle and zoom above to safety.

Funny that is exactly what happened according to the RAF too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So your suggestion is a 190 is to turn as hard as possible, and then if spitfire turns harder zoom? Suicide.
Following aircraft can also employ yoyos or many other possible moves, you thinking always assumes the following aircraft is trying to follow the same path/maneuver as the leading aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lawks, is this still going on? Kett you are just digging yourself an even bigger hole and its hilarious. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I think you are beginning to confuse even yourself.

"That is exactly what the Focke Wulf pilot should be looking for as it indicates the Spitfire has traded velocity for turn performance."

As has the FW pilot by trying to turn into him in your reversal, vertical component or no! Relatively the FW is burning more E than the Spit temporarily, the potential energy is not instantaneously converted within frikkin seconds lol. By the time he can he is already dead! The smart Spit driver is now in lead pursuit and will gun the FW driver down like a floundering pig. True in game and IRL.

Witness here the slightly less than stellar "E-Manoevrability" characteristics of the FW at low speeds, which is at least temporarily what is going to happen by following the stupidity of this reversal suggestion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQTfXVqNo9A

"When the Spitfire gains in the turning circle, the FW190 should roll out of the turning circle and zoom above to safety".

What? With what magical energy in this situation now that the FW is bleeding E in the turn so badly how does he magically 'zoom away'?

LOL! Are you trying to describe some kind of lag displacement roll? What way does he 'roll out of danger' Kett? (the opposite to his turn like the poor FW bugger in the vid?) and with what magical airspeed does he then 'zoom out of danger'? With no smash the FW guy is dead! It would help if the FW was the one in pursuit and not the other way round.

Kett, just give it up (not that you will). You are now making no sense. What you are saying is suicidal in this situation. But have the last word. This of course makes you right lol. There is no shame in being wrong man (if I had a penny....), just 'man up' as you lot say and suck it down. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The reversal is idiotic. END OF STORY.

Good bye. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Kettenhunde
06-02-2010, 09:50 AM
Let's not read the last few post's and think we have a handle on the whole conversation.

Typically Ubizoo, you are arguing positions I have not taken. You certainly seem so much smarter for having not read the thread or bother to understand the positions being laid out.

You should go back and read at least this part. You can substitue "Orville7 and Helltroupee" for Irrational so we don't have to repeat the same exercise.

Thank you very much.

While you play catch up, read the article FC posted.

It explains the science very well.

Nowhere have I said the FW-190 should reverse. I said it COULD reverse and get a shot.

I also said that energy is not free, it is not created or destroyed, and it takes time to change an aircraft's energy height.

Time the Spitfire does not have unless the Focke Wulf pilot gives it to him.

There is no need to offer films where we have no idea of the conditions or situation nor is playing "would have, could have, should have" productive either.

The techniques to evaluate air combat mathematically are well proven and used by almost every air force on the planet.

That is the facts.

JtD
06-02-2010, 10:00 AM
I think I got it, guys. The Spitfire can't maneuver because the 190 is running away from it. That is a fact.

orville07
06-02-2010, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nowhere have I said the FW-190 should reverse. I said it COULD reverse and get a shot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah right. Pardon me for thinking that as a response to the OP's question you might have thought this was a good idea at the time, until you realised it wasn't (lol). Since it appears you have recanted then all well and good.

I work on the 5th floor of an office block. In order to get to the ground floor I COULD take a flying jump out of the window. Though undoubtedly the quickest 'Route' to my destination, this would not however be the best course of action, for quite obvious reasons http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. Ergo, I would not suggest this course of action to anyone who presumably wanted to live when they had reached the said ground floor. Ditto for the reversal.

Yeah, I stopped reading it when it turned into a debate about the philosophy of Science and the influence of the Catholic Church (or something....LOL) It had strayed a wee bit from the original scenario. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

That is all......Have a nice day! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

arjisme
06-02-2010, 12:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by orville07:
Ah right. Pardon me for thinking that as a response to the OP's question you might have thought this was a good idea at the time, until you realised it wasn't (lol). Since it appears you have recanted then all well and good.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>It looks like you did, in fact, not understand what the debate was about. A "good idea?" That was not what was being advocated. Is it possible to do? Yes, that was where the debate was.

irR4tiOn4L
06-02-2010, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
You can substitue "Orville7 and Helltroupee" for Irrational so we don't have to repeat the same exercise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wtf? Why should he do that? What exercise?

Those arent my posts

orville07
06-02-2010, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ar****e:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by orville07:
Ah right. Pardon me for thinking that as a response to the OP's question you might have thought this was a good idea at the time, until you realised it wasn't (lol). Since it appears you have recanted then all well and good.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>It looks like you did, in fact, not understand what the debate was about. A "good idea?" That was not what was being advocated. Is it possible to do? Yes, that was where the debate was. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alright ar****e, if you include being blown into a 1000 pieces of aluminium confetti by the pursuing Spit as part of the definition of "getting away from" as per the Original post, I suppose that may be right on some deeply 'Metaphysical' level. 'Meeting your maker', good bye cruel world and so on and so forth. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Its been fun but can't be bothered, better things to do. Peace be with you all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

arjisme
06-02-2010, 02:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by orville07:
Alright ar****e, if you include being blown into a 1000 pieces of aluminium confetti by the pursuing Spit as part of the definition of "getting away from" as per the Original post, I suppose that may be right on some deeply 'Metaphysical' level. 'Meeting your maker', good bye cruel world and so on and so forth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Once again, the specific debate that generated so many pages was not about "getting away from" a Spit per the OP, but rather about the specific situation of extending 1500m and then trying a reversal -- something first brought up by Raaid several posts into the thread.

orville07
06-02-2010, 04:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ar****e:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by orville07:
Alright ar****e, if you include being blown into a 1000 pieces of aluminium confetti by the pursuing Spit as part of the definition of "getting away from" as per the Original post, I suppose that may be right on some deeply 'Metaphysical' level. 'Meeting your maker', good bye cruel world and so on and so forth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Once again, the specific debate that generated so many pages was not about "getting away from" a Spit per the OP, but rather about the specific situation of extending 1500m and then trying a reversal -- something first brought up by Raaid several posts into the thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, a reversal debate which had nothing to do with the original post but nevertheless has been thoroughly discredited with the application of common sense by numerous posters. the blown apart bit was in direct reference to the reversal. I mentioned the reversal numerous times in my latest posts if you read them, then was more or less told things had 'moved on'. Evidently not. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Reversal= Dead FW pilot. Hows that for a "Formula". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Gaaah. I'm being sucked in again. B*llocks. Hope you enjoyed the "wallowing pig" FW slow speed 'manoeuvrability' vids anyway (pertinent to the magical reversal because that's what it will look like coming out) a picture tells a thousand words.

Go fishing or something people its good for the soul. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Over and out. (Really. Lol.) Carry on! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

arjisme
06-02-2010, 04:32 PM
OK, orville07, I see you have nothing constructive to add to this thread. Reply if you like, unless you still can't be bothered and have those better things to do. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TheGrunch
06-02-2010, 04:41 PM
Well, the argument was that the 190 could perform an effective head-on after a reversal from 1500m separation. Or at least that was the key word in the post that Kettenhunde quoted.

Kettenhunde
06-02-2010, 05:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well, the argument was that the 190 could perform an effective head-on after a reversal from 1500m separation. Or at least that was the key word in the post that Kettenhunde quoted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


What is your definition of effective?

http://www.google.com/search?h...ffective&btnG=Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+effective&btnG=Search)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> producing or capable of producing an intended result </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it guns on the target and a chance to shoot your attacker down?

The reversal is effective.

I think most of you are thinking effective means your opponent is a "fish in a barrel".

WTE_Galway
06-02-2010, 06:00 PM
The controversial Dicta Boelcke number 6 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Some things are argued ad infinitum.


http://www.aviationfans.com/images/OswaldBoelcke.jpg

TS_Sancho
06-02-2010, 07:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
The controversial Dicta Boelcke number 6 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Some things are argued ad infinitum.


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice one!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> 6. If your opponent dives on you, do not try to evade his onslaught, but fly to meet it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source (http://net.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/comment/dicta-b.html)

irR4tiOn4L
06-02-2010, 07:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
What is your definition of effective?

http://www.google.com/search?h...ffective&btnG=Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+effective&btnG=Search)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> producing or capable of producing an intended result </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it guns on the target and a chance to shoot your attacker down?

The reversal is effective.

I think most of you are thinking effective means your opponent is a "fish in a barrel". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol, i knew it would come to this.

I defined it waaaay back Kettenhunde.

In the context of a maneouver, i defined it as one that allows you to put effective fire on the enemy, without coming under more effective fire or having his fire disrupt your own fire (ie, firing first).

Basically, youd have to expect to come off better than him. You cant possibly do that in this case.

Heck, you wont even get guns on target (maybe a snap shot) in the 2 seconds you have after this maneouver

na85
06-02-2010, 08:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:

Lol, i knew it would come to this.

I defined it waaaay back Kettenhunde.

In the context of a maneouver, i defined it as one that allows you to put effective fire on the enemy, without coming under more effective fire or having his fire disrupt your own fire (ie, firing first).

Basically, youd have to expect to come off better than him. You cant possibly do that in this case.

Heck, you wont even get guns on target (maybe a snap shot) in the 2 seconds you have after this maneouver </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So your definition of "effective" is to get "effective gun fire on the enemy"?

You can't use the word you're defining in the definition.

Kettenhunde
06-02-2010, 08:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Some things are argued ad infinitum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep...especially in the days before Aerial Attack Study.

As a result of that report, there is more to compare and less to argue.

irR4tiOn4L
06-02-2010, 08:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:

Lol, i knew it would come to this.

I defined it waaaay back Kettenhunde.

In the context of a maneouver, i defined it as one that allows you to put effective fire on the enemy, without coming under more effective fire or having his fire disrupt your own fire (ie, firing first).

Basically, youd have to expect to come off better than him. You cant possibly do that in this case.

Heck, you wont even get guns on target (maybe a snap shot) in the 2 seconds you have after this maneouver </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So your definition of "effective" is to get "effective gun fire on the enemy"?

You can't use the word you're defining in the definition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes i can http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But ok, effective gun fire can further be defined as gun fire of a duration and accuracy that is likely to result in significant hits and damage on the enemy

That would exclude snap shots, very short fire, fire that had to be abandoned to avoid being hit yourself, etc

But all it boils down to is expecting to do some damage, and more than your enemy inflicts on you

na85
06-02-2010, 08:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That would exclude snap shots </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you never flown a FW in game? A snap shot is all you need with 4x20mm, not to mention carrying the Mk 108s

irR4tiOn4L
06-02-2010, 09:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That would exclude snap shots </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you never flown a FW in game? A snap shot is all you need with 4x20mm, not to mention carrying the Mk 108s </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As long as you can hit.

The kind of snapshot i meant is obviously one where there is almost no chance to hit - but your enemy has had a long time to line you up, and is very likely to hit

As for flying the FW ingame - of course. Though lately ive taken to flying Wings of Prey, and it might just be me, but the Fw's cannons are not very effective in that game

Wurkeri
06-02-2010, 10:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ar****e:
Once again, the specific debate that generated so many pages was not about "getting away from" a Spit per the OP, but rather about the specific situation of extending 1500m and then trying a reversal -- something first brought up by Raaid several posts into the thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that is what has been talked about, a Spitfire pilot is braindead if he can't get the energy advantage if the Fw tries a reversal; in real life as well in the game Spitfire has about 50% higher climb rate and 1500m separation is enough to use this advantage.

As suggested earlier, try it in the simulator http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If you think that the simulator is modeled wrong, just contact Team Daidalos and provide the data which supports your case.

M_Gunz
06-03-2010, 01:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wurkeri:
If you think that the simulator is modeled wrong, just contact Team Daidalos and provide the data which supports your case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif within 5%, it does run on a PC

M_Gunz
06-03-2010, 01:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Is it guns on the target and a chance to shoot your attacker down? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ability to get and hold lead on the target within effective range for at least 1/2 second that you can see coming.
There is no sure thing if the target has energy and time to counter, to spoil that aim. That's why so much cat and
mouse games or close in shots are much preferred. Either reduce the target's energy to where he can't maneuver out
of the way or get so close he has no time or preferably both.
This reversal is more of an ill-advised desperation move than good tactic. Possible but at quite some risk. Just
the kind of thing tried over and over in games.

Kettenhunde
06-03-2010, 04:35 AM
Why do we keep repeating the same things?

Its it possible to put some of these points behind us and move on or are we going to keep regurgitating points that never existed?

Or are we looking to morph the argument into something it never was?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Crumpp says:
I never said a thing about your game and do not put words in my mouth.

It was said that the FW-190 did not have time to reverse. Simple physics says otherwise </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...401082858#7401082858 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3631050558?r=7401082858#7401082858)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Crumpp says:
First I never advocated it as a tactic for your game. I don't play IL2 nor do I know what works in it.

The claim was the FW-190 could not reverse in that distance. It can reverse. It is that simple. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...991035858#4991035858 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3631050558?r=4991035858#4991035858)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Crumpp says:
Sure but the statement was not what is the best tactic for the FW-190. That is just something for a poster have made up so they can posture over it for their own edification. Others have jumped on that bandwagon because on a BBS, only the latest post is the conversation...

The statement was the FW-190 could not reverse to meet the Spitfire in the amount of time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...151056858#4151056858 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3631050558?r=4151056858#4151056858)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> a Spitfire pilot is braindead if he can't get the energy advantage if the Fw tries a reversal; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Crumpp says:
No it is because I can pick up a calculator and quickly determine using a process called "Total Energy Concepts for Aircraft Performance" that zooming and immediate reversal is basically a null proposition for the Spitfire.

At 330 mph the FW-190 is at an Eh = 6954 ft with a Ps of ~25.4ft/s.

The Spitfire at 330 mph is at a Eh = 6954ft with a Ps = 0. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...911036168#2911036168 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3631050558?r=2911036168#2911036168)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> One possibility would be to extend a little farther and then climb at the slower airplanes Vmax.

Once a couple of hundred feet above, zoom to best rate of turn velocity and reverse.

I would make all of my turns at best performance speeds if possible. When not turning, keep your speed up as high as possible and convert the excess speed to altitude in a zoom to your turn speeds before making the turn.

I would use energy neutral maneuvers such as a displacement roll to neutralize a rate advantage and never let your speed drop below best load factor velocity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> a Spitfire pilot is braindead if he can't get the energy advantage </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? Where is the time going to come from to do that? Mitchell designed a great airplane but he is not HG Wells with a time machine.

The Spitfire also has to reverse.

If he gives the Focke Wulf pilot that time then he will once again be at a lower Energy Height and a lower potential to maneuver.

TheGrunch
06-03-2010, 04:58 AM
"There is no way you can turn fast enough in a 190 to do an effective head on with a pursuing spit 1.5km away..."
ROXunreal, page one.
I just don't understand why you chose to reply to everything except the bolded word, then?

Kettenhunde
06-03-2010, 05:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I just don't understand why you chose to reply to everything except the bolded word, then? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In your personal interpretation only.

The statement does not read:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "There is no way you can turn fast enough in a 190 to do the most effective counter so that the Spitfire has no chance." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The initial scenario is already begins at the most advantaged position a WWII fighter can have in the first place.

M_Gunz
06-03-2010, 05:44 AM
The Spitfire also has to reverse.

Only if it follows the FW's path even after it begins a 180 1500m ahead. Otherwise no, he can leisurely
pull lead at much fewer G's than the FW pilot and he has the option to gain height before doing that to
save some of his energy whether the FW does a flat turn or not to save some of his.
But the FW pilot must change heading ASAP and in doing so he's going to be burning energy faster than
he has power to replace than the trailing Spitfire pilot has to.

It's the old story of the pursuit having the option of flying a lower energy path. It's trailing pursuit
being able to pull less G's than the target and still maintain lead due to simple geometry. Not following
the target's path is a staple to beating one with a maneuver advantage or if he persists in maneuver then
even one with a speed advantage. And when you have the maneuver advantage just by slowing down a little,
a hard maneuvering enemy becomes your prey. You don't have to match his moves, just reach across and touch.

arjisme
06-03-2010, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
In the context of a maneouver, i defined it as one that allows you to put effective fire on the enemy, without coming under more effective fire or having his fire disrupt your own fire (ie, firing first). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's an interesting definition and I have to admit I don't recall seeing that posted earlier. However, seeing it now, I have to wonder how any head-on can quality as an effective fire opportunity under that definition?

I would have defined effective fire as having a reasonable chance to fire your weapons and hit the enemy. How devastating that is to the enemy is more a function of the particular weapon load out your aircraft has and the armor configuration of the target.

"Advisable" is a different concept as well. I would say any situation that allows your opponent to execute effective fire on you is bad and, therefore, it is not advisable to maneuver into such a situation.

tmp190
06-03-2010, 07:25 AM
I was about to bring my 2 cents, but already number 3 post in the original thread said it exactly:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
If you're out of options, you can try scissors in the 109. Diving semi-rolling scissors with some flaps and idle power usually work the best - if you happen to have the altitude. Remember to use negative G maneuvers too. Spitfire's good energy retention will work against him. If you do it right, you will get a shot if you get to surprise him with that move. If you dont, you have just bought yourself the possibility to bug out. Use it. Another move, if you have high speed and hes coming behind you very fast, is to committ a diving break turn to either side, and climb when hes cutting your turn - this will permit him from getting a guns solution and will change the situation into scissors where hes already about to overshoot you. The more he tries to pull the lead, the worse he overshoots and the better firing position you will get. Just beaware its a Spit, bug out if you get possibility to do so, dont committ yourself in the turnfight or extended scissors if you fail to lure him in front of your guns at first.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

JtD
06-03-2010, 08:55 AM
A screenshot from in game illustrating how effective the head on is and how well the Fw 190A-8 can turn fast enough. Spit is just flying straight at 540 average. Fw was used with fuel tanks near empty to account for any possible undermodeling in game. Doesn't make much of a difference because the pilot greys out.

- the resulting situation is not a head on (unless the Spitfire pilot choses so)
- the Fw cannot turn fast enough to gain a firing solution
- the maneuver is ineffective unless your target is to get yourself killed fast - then it works very well

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/screens/grab0001.jpg

Hope this finally illustrates the silliness of that maneuver in that situation.

Kettenhunde
06-03-2010, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Only if it follows the FW's path even after it begins a 180 1500m ahead. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Once again, all speculation is removed if one does the math IAW TE Concepts for Aircraft Performance. That system is used for just these purposes, to evaluate and compare airplanes in a dogfight.

The Spitfire can either trade its energy height in an offensive move or it can conserve its Eh.

Either way it cannot afford to give the Focke Wulf time as the FW-190 has more potential to maneuver at the altitude under discussion.

It is just that simple. What can and cannot be done in a game is not my concern or issue. The math is available to anyone who wants to learn.

In fact, I given several people on these boards a very good primer on TE Concepts some years ago.

The situation can certainly be speculated to death in fantasy scenarios of the posters own design.

The outcome of those fantasy constructions can be in favor of either aircraft.

Kettenhunde
06-03-2010, 09:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Doesn't make much of a difference because the pilot greys out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Why the greyout?

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/9349/whythegreyout.jpg (http://img594.imageshack.us/i/whythegreyout.jpg/)

That is not even getting into the physiological benefits of the design's seating.

M_Gunz
06-03-2010, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The Spitfire can either trade its energy height in an offensive move or it can conserve its Eh. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It can do both by shallow (or not so shallow) zooming until it slows to best sustained turn speed.
Of course the FW should also be using the vertical even more to change his heading.

Comparing SEP and Eh tells nothing about one plane flying a longer, harder turn path than the other either
and that's no fantasy. Flying a lower energy path and/or a shorter path is always an advantage. Where did
I learn those terms? Robert Shaw.

M_Gunz
06-03-2010, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/screens/grab0001.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nose high flat turn.... you could do better, honest. BTW, flat turns in a FW suxx anyway.

Kettenhunde
06-03-2010, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Comparing SEP and Eh tells nothing about one plane flying a longer, harder turn path than the other either and that's no fantasy. Flying a lower energy path and/or a shorter path is always an advantage. Where did I learn those terms? Robert Shaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Comparing Eh and SEP tells you about potential to maneuver and not specific maneuvers to do.

From John Powell, "Airplane Performance; Fixed Wing Flight Mechanics"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Energy height is not an altitude but the sum of the specific potential and kinetic
energy states. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So this new term, Specific Excess Power, commonly expressed, Ps, is Excess Power divided by the Weight, which is also equal to the change in Energy Height, (dEh/dt), with respect to time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Once Ps is determined either by saw tooth climbs or by level accelerations, climb performance can be calculated. As an additional note the key to being a good fighter pilot or a good aerobatic pilot is to know how to take advantage of your aircraft’s Ps. An aircraft’s ability to climb, accelerate, or execute a sustained turn is directly linked to Specific Excess Power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So why is the conversation a bunch of IF/THEN statements?

The majority of post's are "IF" this plane does "THIS" Plane does "THAT"; "THEN" it will blah, blah, blah,....

None of those IF/THEN statements change the basic Energy height situation the scenario begins with....

Edited because I misunderstood what M_Gunz wrote. I thought he was pointing out that Eh and Ps do not represent specific performance.

JtD
06-03-2010, 11:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:

Nose high flat turn.... you could do better, honest. BTW, flat turns in a FW suxx anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Going into the turn slightly high reduces speed, gives more turn rate at the same g (pilot limit) and when coming down again, adds to speed and improves turn rate (stall limit). If you want to pull the 9-5g through the turn, the screen will be just black. Or you have to sacrifice more turn rate. Going slightly high improves the scenario for the 190 - still to no avail.

TheGrunch
06-03-2010, 11:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
In your personal interpretation only.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think that this maneuver - having half a second to make a shot after pulling a high-G turn and being within the enemy's firing parameters for probably around two seconds prior to even having a chance at taking a shot, assuming that the enemy decides to accept the head on - could ever be considered effective by any interpretation.

JtD
06-03-2010, 11:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Why the greyout? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because I was doing a maximum performance turn under full power, not a gentle one like in your funny little chart.

If you want to propose this as the new ideal turn, you better get back to your primitive turn calculation and redo it with the above load factors.

M_Gunz
06-03-2010, 12:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:

Nose high flat turn.... you could do better, honest. BTW, flat turns in a FW suxx anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Going into the turn slightly high reduces speed, gives more turn rate at the same g (pilot limit) and when coming down again, adds to speed and improves turn rate (stall limit). If you want to pull the 9-5g through the turn, the screen will be just black. Or you have to sacrifice more turn rate. Going slightly high improves the scenario for the 190 - still to no avail. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try losing alt in the first half of the turn, a 5 to 10 degree dive to lose perhaps 200-300m alt. It unloads your wings.
You will still slow down just from pulling hard G's but you will have less drag for the same turning G's. Halfway or so
through swing the nose back up. Give it a try, it works a treat. Only thing better at high speed is a wingover or loop.

JtD
06-03-2010, 01:33 PM
It's a high speed reversal at sea level. Diving is not an option.

Also I need to lose speed quickly in the first phase. I'm at the g limit.

Kettenhunde
06-03-2010, 02:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">not a gentle one like in your funny little chart. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> you better get back to your primitive turn calculation </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is the basic load factor scheme.

That "primitive turn calculation" is not only using accepted theory and formulation, it is as conservative as you can get.

M_Gunz
06-03-2010, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
It's a high speed reversal at sea level. Diving is not an option.

Also I need to lose speed quickly in the first phase. I'm at the g limit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I confess I either missed or forgot about the sea level part. That makes it wingover time since if the enemy begins to
counter you have more options and have kept more E as height. If he zooms too then you keep going up since you started
at higher speed and can zoom faster. His better sustained climb rate doesn't matter until he's slowed down that much
and by then he can barely get out of his own way. Even if he noses down it'll take a while before he can pull more than
2 G's. If you happen to be above him coming down with the smash to get a lead on him then it's not his day.

Shaw shows the diagrams and while they are for jets the basic shapes and tactics and science behind them applies.
A half loop with a 180 roll over the top and drop back down or a zoom to a tilted half turn utilize gravity and
height to tighten your turn. The more your plane is traveling with gravity (vertical) the less your wing loading,
the less your drag and yet your turn will be up to 1 G tighter (from the outside) without blackout than a flat turn.
Since gravity accelerates you downward, you should be able to pull 7 G x sin(your vertical maneuver angle) in game
over the top of a loop just as in reality. Cockpit G-meter (do we have any? I never looked)) should say 6 x sin(YVMA).

Why burn speed for nothing just to get a tighter radius when you can bank it and get an even tighter radius?
I don't understand yas, I left flat turns behind in sims as far back as 1987 but didn't know how-all it worked
until 1998. Flat turns in combat is for turn-fighters and mudhens.

AndyJWest
06-03-2010, 06:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Cockpit G-meter (do we have any? I never looked) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Offline, you can use DeviceLink to get this - My AP has a G-Meter. The DeviceLink documentation calls it 'overload', but it definitely corresponds with G. I think this may come in handy with the revised structural limits coming with the 4.10 patch.

I've not noticed a G-meter in any IL-2 sim cockpit, but there seems to be no reason why one couldn't be provided. Just not authentic for WW II aircraft?

M_Gunz
06-03-2010, 06:26 PM
Just a thought here. Suppose I am in a faster plane going 20kph faster than my pursuit who is 1500m behind.
I pull up into a vertical zoom. All my speed goes into height until I leave that path. I started faster in
a plane that climbs faster at high speed.

20kph faster is just under 5.5m/s, right?

However until my pursuit closes to me on the horizontal, he can't begin to match my climb angle without
turning his belly towards me and if he does then he's not getting closer and he can't see me until he can
get vertical too and roll at least 90 degrees to put me off a wing. And where can I be by then?

If he keeps me in sight then most of his speed is not going into height, he's not slowing down as fast
as I am which hurts his ability to climb more than mine and mine is converting to height at a difference
that is greater than rates of climb or top speeds. I should be able to top out well above him at 360+kph.

Just a couple thoughts.

na85
06-03-2010, 07:15 PM
If you're 1500 meters ahead of someone you have a speed advantage on, and he's on your 6, you should enter into a gradual climb as you wait for your wingman to come and paste him.

julian265
06-03-2010, 08:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
If you're 1500 meters ahead of someone you have a speed advantage on, and he's on your 6, you should enter into a gradual climb as you wait for your wingman to come and paste him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen to that!